Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MID-WESSEX WATER BILL

As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BOARD BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 26th February.

TORQUAY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

PETITION (TEXTILE INDUSTRY)

Mr. Drayson: It is my privilege to address to this honourable House a Petition signed by 3,000 of my constituents, inhabitants of the Urban District Council of Barnoldswick. The Petitioners are largely dependent for their livelihood on the textile industry.
They point out that, in 1945, workers, operatives and managements were asked to increase their production of exports but that during the last six years there have been considerable reductions in exports and that foreign competitors now manufacture for themselves. They say:
At the same time there has been an increase of duty-free imports from Commonwealth and colonial sources produced in territories where there are lower wages and lower standards of living. This has resulted in widespread depression during the past few years and ten out of 22 weaving firms in this town have closed down.
The position recently has been aggravated by the destruction by fire of a mill employing several hundred weavers. Unemployment figures do not

show a complete picture owing to short-time working and underemployment, as well as to certain classes of married women who do not figure on the register. They say:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will take action without delay to limit the import of cheap textiles produced under unfair competitive conditions and will devote itself to saving the cotton towns in the country from becoming derelict, by taking prompt action to stimulate and revive the cotton industry.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

United Kingdom Residents (Overseas Visits)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated numbers of people from the United Kingdom who took holidays abroad in the years 1951 and 1958, respectively.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): There were about 1¼ million visits abroad for holiday, business, and other purposes by United Kingdom residents in 1951, and about 2½ million in 1958.

Mr. Osborne: Are not those figures proof that Tory freedom does work?

Foreign Shipbuilding (Subsidies)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the action he has recently taken to secure some international agreement to stop the subsidising of foreign shipbuilding and so give British ship builders a fair chance to compete.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There have been no international negotiations such as my hon. Friend seems to have in mind. I have, therefore, no statement to make.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that British shipbuilding has sunk to third place in the world, will not the Government take steps to get an agreement with countries that subsidise shipbuilding, and also draw attention to the folly of striking


in Glasgow at the present time over demarcation, which is causing the position to be worse?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If my hon. Friend has evidence that subsidies or artificial aids are affecting our ability to compete for foreign orders, we shall be very glad to receive the details.

Israel

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increased rate of immigration into Israel, he will appoint a trade mission to visit that country to study the possibility of expanding the volume of trade between Israel and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Trade between Israel and this country has increased substantially in recent years. My right hon. Friend does not feel that a trade mission is called for at the present time.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that over the last few months there has been a very marked increase in the population of Israel, which will lead to a great demand for consumer goods? Will he not consider the possibility of some new form of trade agreement to ease currency difficulties which might arise and so help our exports, especially such things as textiles from Lancashire?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that what Anglo-Israeli trade at present needs is an expansion of Israeli exports either to this country or to other countries with convertible currency in order to earn more to pay for imports from this country.

Peas

Sir A. Baldwin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the considerable increase in the importation of peas and the consequent reduction in the acreage of home-grown peas, he will either reinstate the import control or, alternatively, increase the tariff.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: An application for an increased tariff on frozen peas has been made by the industry, and it is, of course, open to it to make similar applications for other varieties of peas.

Sir A. Baldwin: While appreciating that the Board of Trade is conducting

very delicate negotiations at present, may I ask whether my hon. Friend does not think it time to protect this industry which has suffered so much in the last few years? Imports have increased to an enormous extent and the industry is declining in the area where peas are grown. Does he not think it time to do something about it?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As I said, there is an application for frozen peas under consideration now. As regards the other kinds, I think it is for the industry to make the application.

Cuban Cigars

Mr. Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent extension of the Anglo-Cuban trade agreement and the increased quota for Cuban cigars for which it provides, the Government will have more regard in future arrangements of this sort to the desirability of increasing United Kingdom trade with the Caribbean Colonies.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I can assure my hon. Friend that we do pay great attention to our trading relationships with all the dependent territories and that we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Fisher: While that is welcomed, would my hon. Friend not agree that we have a direct responsibility to our own Colonies which should be reflected in our trade policy, and that by steadily increasing the Cuban cigar quota we must be steadily reducing our cigar industry in Jamaica?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In the case of the Anglo-Cuban trade, we must look at the problem as a whole rather than at any particular effect on an industry.

Mr. Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when the present trade agreement with Cuba comes to an end, the Government will consider a reduction in the quota for Cuban cigars in the interests of the cigar industry in Jamaica.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Agreement is for the next three years. It is too early to say in what terms it will be renewed.

Mr. Fisher: Would my hon. Friend agree that the steady rise in Cuban cigar quotas from 500,000 dollars in 1952 to


1 million dollars worth in 1958 and a prospective 1½ million worth in 1961 must be prejudicial to the Jamaican cigar exports to this country and also to employment in the cigar industry in Jamaica?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is an open market and it is for the consumer to decide what particular cigar he wants to use.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a Conservative Opposition spokesman in July, 1951, denounced the first arrangement for Cuban cigars as "a black pact", will the hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend that if we do not bring Cuban cigars into this country Cuba will not have the currency to pay for the arms which the Foreign Secretary was so anxious to send to Cuba?

Factory, Gloucester

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the factors which influenced him in granting permission to British Nylon Spinners to establish their new factory in Gloucester.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend's permission is not required for taking over existing premises but, having regard to the firm's needs as known to us, the decision appears to be reasonable.

Mr. Hamilton: Whatever valid or invalid reasons might be given for allowing this firm to go to Gloucester, they were not provided for either in the original Distribution of Industry Act or in last year's Act. If the intention of the Government is to encourage industry to go to areas with high percentages of unemployment, does this not make absolute nonsense of that declared policy?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. The hon. Member knows that the Board of Trade can exercise only negative control over the siting of a factory through the refusal of an I.D.C., and it would be a reversal of policy to start suggesting that we should have compulsory powers of directive.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the President of the Board of Trade not to consider some alternative policy if this means the de-

population of parts of the country and turning great areas into distressed areas?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We have announced a number of measures which, I hope, will make areas where severe unemployment is rife considerably more attractive.

Mr. Philips Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in Gloucester has been growing very considerably owing to the closing down of an aircraft factory and that this industry will very substantially relieve the situation and give employment to quite a number of people in my constituency?

Mr. H. Wilson: Without taking sides between these various places, particularly as my constituency put in a bid for this factory, are we to take it from the Answer of the hon. Gentleman that the policy of refusing Industrial Development Certificates, about which the Government trumpeted so much earlier this year when they first turned down the Havant project, has now been dropped and that they are not prepared to use this negative means of steering factories to the places that need them most?

North Staffordshire

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that suitable land has been zoned for industrial development in Cheadle, Staffordshire; and to what extent he has been able to offer help in bringing new industries to Cheadle.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 29th January, we have suggested to a number of firms that they might go to North Staffordshire.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and in North Staffordshire we appreciate the interest taken by the Board of Trade, but I hope that when the opportunity comes special attention will be given to this area, which has growing unemployment.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In the last 18 months we have suggested North Staffordshire to more than a dozen firms as an area which should be considered.

G.A.T.T. (Restrictive Trade Practices)

Mr. Oram: asked the President of the Board of Trade who is to represent the United Kingdom on the group of governmental experts which the Thirteenth Session of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decided to set up to study restrictive business practices in international trade; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Invitations to Governments to nominate representatives to serve on the group of experts have not yet been issued. We would examine any proposal which might emerge from the experts' studies in the light of the conclusions reached on whether concerted international action is needed or practicable.

Mr. Oram: Is the Minister aware that during the last decade there has been a great deal of discussion in various international bodies on the subject of international restrictive practices without any effective action being taken as a result? Since the activities of cartels can so easily frustrate attempts to reduce tariffs and remove quantitative restrictions, will the Government ensure that we take a full and vigorous part in those discussions and back up the Scandinavian countries, which have been left to take the lead in these matters in the past?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that the convening of the group and nomination of those to serve on it have been left to the Executive Secretary of the G.A.T.T.

British Trade Fair, Lisbon

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the expenditure of his Department on the British Trade Fair in Lisbon next May.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: About £14,000.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the Minister or his right hon. Friend make clear that that expenditure is of a purely commercial kind and must not be regarded as an open or implied support for the tyrannical and terrorist Government of Dr. Salazar?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Board of Trade stand will be devoted to a display of consumer goods.

Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley

Mr. Boardman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance has been given under the Distribution of Industry Act to the towns of Leigh, Atherton, and Tyldesley; and if he will state the area of factory space provided, and the number of people for whom employment has been provided.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Board of Trade has no powers to build factories in Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley, since they are not in a Development Area. The level of unemployment in this district is, I am glad to say, not above the national average. My right hon. Friend would not, therefore, be justified in including these towns on the list of places for which financial assistance is available under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act.

Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware that when these towns applied for inclusion in the Schedule the reply of his Department was that the two major industries of cotton and coal were far too important to the national economy to risk any industrial counter-attractions? In view of the fact that cotton is contracting rapidly and coal is showing the same trend, will the hon. Gentleman review the Act?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We shall welcome new industries into the area, but it does not qualify.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman recall that the 1945 Act specifically required the President of the Board of Trade to schedule not only areas where there is high unemployment but where there are prospects of unemployment? Does the Board of Trade always wait for unemployment to develop before it starts to get industries into an area, knowing that it takes twelve to eighteen months to get a factory established?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. The point is that the new measures we are applying are designed to help places where unemployment is at its worst.

British Contracts (United States)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make further representations about the rejection by the United States Govern ment of the bid by a British firm for


turbines for Greer's Ferry Dam, in view of the fact that the same American firm awarded the contract for turbines has, as a result of a recent decision of Her Majesty's Government, been allowed to export to this country certain earth-moving equipment, and that this export has directly resulted in the cancellation of orders for similar equipment made by a Lincoln firm which is already working short-time.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. We have already made representations about the rejection of this bid and I do not think that further representations would strengthen the claim we have made on behalf of the English Electric Company.

Mr. de Freitas: Would it not be useful to point out that the very firm which was awarded these contracts was, as a result of a special decision of the Government quite recently, allowed to export to this country certain earth-moving equipment which we could make in Lincoln? Does he realise that Lincoln was also to make components for the English Electric turbine? So, as a result of the acts of the Government and the United States Government, the city has lost both on the swings and on the roundabouts.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Wide publicity has been given to the facts contained in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I think he should note that since liberalisation imports of all types of earth-moving equipment from America have fallen off.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what intimation he has received from the Government of the United States of America in respect of further refusals of British tenders for the supply of machinery to the United States of America at prices lower than United States or other competitors.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The United States Government have informed us that the Greer's Ferry Dam project does not establish a precedent and that each case will be considered on its merits.

Mr. Sorensen: In the interests of promoting Anglo-American friendship and understanding, is it not highly desirable for the American Government to explain more fully and adequately to the people of this country why they exercised this unfortunate kind of discrimination?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That is a matter of public relations for the United States Government rather than for me, but the Buy American Act applies only to orders placed by Federal agencies.

Mr. de Ferranti: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to promote the export of electrical generating equipment to the United States of America.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My hon. Friend will be aware of the representations that Her Majesty's Government have already made about the contract for Greer's Ferry Dam. But the sale of generating equipment in the United States is essentially for the individual manufacturer and strenuous and successful efforts have indeed been made. In this connection, I am glad that the Tennessee Valley Authority has just awarded a large contract to a British company. It is an important event in Anglo-American trading relations.

Mr. de Ferranti: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware, however, that in this whole question there is need to tread softly? Will he undertake to consult the industry at all possible stages?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, Sir.

Machine Tool Industry (Statistics)

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make arrangements for the earlier publication of the machine tool industry statistics, in view of the importance of this key industry to the national economy and their relevance to the formulation of economic policy.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We have been looking at our arrangements for collecting machine tool statistics. I hope that it will be possible for these to be published more quickly in future.

Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to the Minister of State for his reply. Bearing these statistics in mind, do they not show that for three months this country has been lagging behind current events?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I was very surprised when I looked into this matter. It is only fair to say that the time of publication depends on the time taken by


the firms to complete their returns, but we hope that it will be possible to make an effective improvement.

Common Market (Motor Industry)

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the adverse effect of the introduction of the Common Market on the British motor industry what reduction he expects in British exports of motor cars to the Common Market countries; and what action he is taking in order to offset the disadvantageous consequences to the motor industry of the establishment of the Common Market.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The reduction of tariffs and the extension of quotas if confined to trade between the Common Market countries would place British industry at a disadvantage, but I cannot assess the effect which this might have on our motor car exports. We shall continue to work in Europe for solutions which would avoid these developments.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the likelihood of the Common Market adversely affecting the British motor industry, will the President of the Board of Trade consider approaching the Scandinavian countries, which have been talking of creating a northern association, in order to see whether they might enlarge the import of British motor cars by bilateral or multilateral agreements?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that I would rather see that question on the Order Paper.

Flax Mills

Mr. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the disposal of the Howden Flax Mill closed down by his Department two years ago.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Negotiations for the sale of this property have reached an advanced stage.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister of State aware that there is a rumour in the neighbourhood that restrictions are placed upon the use to which this factory may be put and that that has held up

the sale and disposal of it up to now? Will the hon. Gentleman agree that no restrictions should be placed upon it so that the factory may be used as quickly as possible?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I cannot make any further comment on the negotiations which are proceeding at the present time, but I will note the hon. Gentleman's remark.

Mr. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the Government flax mills are still unoccupied; and what steps are being taken to put them into use for the alleviation of local unemployment.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Eight of the ten Government flax factories have now been disposed of, another is about to be sold and an offer is being considered for the remaining one.

Mr. Jeger: Have the factories which have been sold been put into occupation and use, or are they lying idle?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: One of the factors in disposing of them is the amount of employment likely to be offered.

Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the grounds on which he decided that Sunderland did not qualify for inclusion on the list of places where Government assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, will be available.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The level and persistence of unemployment in Sunderland did not measure up to the criteria which are applied for determining whether a place can be included on the list.

Mr. Willey: Then cannot the Minister accept that the criteria are unsatisfactory? We have well over 5,000 unemployed, the prospects for the shipbuilding industry are far from certain, and something must be done.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The hon. Member was told on 10th February that we shall watch the position closely.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade why no factory extensions have been authorised in Sunderland.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We have not had an application from any of our tenants.

Mr. Willey: Is that not a good reason for starting immediately the proposed training estate north of the river? Why can we not begin it to ease the unemployment?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question down, and then I will answer it.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that I put down the Question last week and in view of the continued unsatisfactory reply from the hon. Gentleman's Department, I beg to give notice that I will continue to try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

North-East Development Area

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons were previously employed on the Government-owned factories in the North-East Development Area which are at present vacant.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Approximately 2,200.

Mr. Willey: Would not the Department accept this as a special responsibility? These factories are at present empty and exceptional steps will have to be taken immediately to see that they are at work again.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Parliamentary Secretary announced on 10th February an extra inducement by reduction in the rents for certain factories.

Mr. Willey: Does not the Minister of State agree that something far more drastic than that has to be done to attract new industries to areas where factories have been closed down for lack of work?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that this will produce very good results.

Cigarettes

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the estimated consumption of cigarettes in the United Kingdom for 1958; how many were filter-tipped; and what were the corresponding figures in 1951.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is estimated that consumers' expenditure at 1954

prices on cigarettes in 1957, the latest year for which figures are available, was £804 million. In 1951 it was £695 million. Official estimates of expenditure on filter-tipped cigarettes have not been made.

Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend has not quite given the answer I wanted. Could he give the numbers, not the value? I asked for the estimated numbers.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Actually, my hon. Friend referred to the consumption; he did not ask for numbers. I gave the best answer available from the statistics at our disposal.

Dr. Stross: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is a very important question and that it would be desirable to know whether there has been a substantial increase in the smoking of filtertipped cigarettes? The reason for it is, at least in part, that any rubbish can be smoked through a filter-tipped cigarette and that this affects the country from which we import our tobacco.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: These statistics are not collected by any Government Department, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said.

Mr. Fort: Would my hon. Friend consult the Minister of Health about collecting figures with regard to filter-tipped cigarettes in view of their possible importance in the incidence of lung cancer?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I have made my views on the matter known to the House on previous occasions.

Goole

Mr. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade which industrial centres in the north-east he proposes to visit to view their local unemployment problems; and whether he will include the port of Goole in his tour in view of the special difficulties there.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Parliamentary Secretary was in Hull yesterday. My right hon. Friend expects to visit the North-East later in the year.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister address himself to the specific question which I put, namely, whether he will include the port of Goole in his visit to the North-East?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the remark of the hon. Member.

Chalk Quarrying, West Dorset

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he has supported applications for quarrying chalk in West Dorset, in view of the need to provide more local employment.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend has not been asked to support any such applications.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the Minister aware that an application was made for reopening one quarry, but this was turned down, probably reasonably, on planning grounds? Will the Minister give careful consideration to future applications?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, if they are submitted to us.

Factory, Corwen

Mr. T. W. Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade what efforts have been made by his Department to secure a new tenant for the textile factory at Corwen, Merioneth, which was closed last August.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: This factory has been brought to the attention of a number of firms, but unfortunately we have not yet been able to find anyone willing to take it.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that about 80 women who were specially trained for work at this factory are now unemployed without any hope of further employment? Will he make a special effort to utilise the services of these skilled women?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes. I realise that this is a rather special case involving rural unemployment. I might remind the hon. Member that the Development Fund is available to assist appropriate light industries in cases like this.

Drugs

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received under Section 41 of the Patents and Designs

Act, 1949, by British companies for licences to manufacture aureomycin, tetracycline and terramycin, at present being manufactured wholly by British based subsidiaries of United States firms; and if he is satisfied that the present system of restricted production accords with the official policy in this matter.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No applications have been received. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health welcomes competition in the supply of drugs, but the Comptroller can only consider such applications for manufacturing licences as he receives.

Dr. Mabon: Is the Minister of State aware that he himself is showing early symptoms of influenza today and that these drugs would be useful in the treatment of that condition? Would he recognise that many manufacturers are quite unaware of the existence of the opportunity afforded by this branch of legislation? Does he not consider that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade should, as a matter of duty, draw to the attention of manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry the possibility of taking advantage of this so that we can bring down prices?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his sympathy. If anything, I am suffering from the aftermath of an antibiotic. I will note what the hon. Member says, but the facilities are there for those who wish to use them.

Forest of Dean

Mr. Philips Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent increase in unemployment mainly caused by the closing of the Eastern United colliery in the Forest of Dean, he will consider applying the provisions of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act to that area.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The level of unemployment in the Forest of Dean does not justify the inclusion of the area in the places to which the provisions of the Act apply.

Mr. Philips Price: If the unemployment figures rose to 4 per cent.—and they cannot be far away from that now— would further facilities be available than exist now?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We would have to consider it. The present figure is 3·2 per cent.

Development Areas

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent the concessions announced on 10th February regarding rentals of unoccupied factories in Development Areas will apply to areas scheduled under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958;
(2) to what extent arrangements for grant-aiding local authorities to clear derelict sites in Development Areas will apply to areas scheduled under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Those areas which are eligible for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, qualify for the rental concessions and site clearance grants only if they are within the Development Areas which are scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that his reply will cause great disappointment, particularly in the slate quarrying areas of North-West Wales, which have the highest unemployment figures in Britain and the biggest deposits of industrial waste? Would it not be reasonably sensible to apply these provisions to those areas, although they are not at present scheduled?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The loans and grants under the new Act are available.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that for six years the Government have not used the powers which they already had under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, for the purpose of ensuring against unemployment in these areas? Now that the problem has developed on such an alarming scale, is it not clear from the hon. Gentleman's Answer that the Department's decision in respect of each of these areas is utterly beset by bureaucratic muddle? If there is this problem of assimilation between the two Acts of Parliament, will the hon. Gentleman introduce rapidly a consolidation Measure to make the situation dear, on the understanding that this side

of the House will give it the speediest passage?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. I have every hope that the facilities provided under the new Act will be very successful.

Bolton

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what applications for industrial development he has had in the Bolton area in the last six months; and the number of applications approved.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: For the area covered by the Bolton Employment Exchange, applications for six Industrial Development Certificates have been received; and all of these have been granted.

Anglo-Irish Agreement (Foreign Cloth)

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement concerning new arrangements relating to the importation of needlecord and corduroy garments from Eire made out of foreign cloth and imported to the United Kingdom free of duty.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am glad to be able to tell the House that the discussions with the Irish authorities have now been satisfactorily concluded. Arrangements to limit exports to this country of these and other garments made from woven cotton materials imported from Japan and Soviet bloc countries will come into force on 1st March.

Hungary

Mr. Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Prime Minister's impending visit to Moscow and study of trade conditions there, he will now take steps to open trade discussions with other Iron Curtain countries, especially Hungary.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We already have regular trade discussions with most of these countries, including Hungary.

Mr. Teeling: Are there likely to be any fresh or more detailed discussions with Hungary in the near future?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We start our next round of formal talks in May.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the Prime Minister's new-found enthusiasm for trade with the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries and that despite the disappointments we have had over five or six years in his capacity both as Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we have sought repeatedly to get some of these embargoes lifted, I very much welcome the fact that he has—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] The question began with the words "Is the hon. Gentleman aware", which is interrogatory. Is he aware that we welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary state that they will now try to help Anglo-Soviet trade, for a change?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Allowing for the element of exaggeration and even of hyperbole which crept into that lengthy supplementary question, I would say that we are all anxious to see Anglo-Russian trade develop.

Hong Kong Exports

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in respect of the limitation of exports from Hong Kong of commodities other than textiles.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend keeps in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on all matters affecting our trade with Hong Kong but, as he made clear on 3rd April last, it is not the intention of the Government to sponsor arrangements in respect of other exports from Hong Kong similar to those for cotton.

Mr. Sorensen: Why is there this discrimination? Surely, if it is appropriate in one instance, it might be appropriate for other commodities imported into this country from the same country which are in serious competition with products here, particularly if the imported goods are made under conditions of sweated labour.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. Cotton presents special problems, a fact which

the whole House accepts. I remind the hon. Member of the resolutions adopted at the Montreal Conference on the question of keeping our markets open to goods from such countries.

Bristol Area

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act in the Filton area of South Gloucestershire, in view of the increased unemployment in the Bristol area and the uncertainties affecting the aircraft industry and of the fact that it remains the largest employer of labour and is likely to be affected by considerable redundancies.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The rate of unemployment in the Bristol area, which includes Filton, is not such that it qualifies under the Act.

Mr. Corfield: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the preferability of anticipating events instead of waiting until they overtake his Department?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The rate for wholly unemployed workers in this area is at the moment 2·3 per cent.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister of State aware that the unemployment figure in Bristol is higher than it has been for twenty years? When will he take steps to help the situation concerning employment?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is substantially lower than the national average.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what projects have been approved since 1st October, 1958, in the city and county of Aberdeen; what is their nature; where they are located; when each will be completed and in working order; and what and where is the Government-financed factory which has been extended since then.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In Peterhead, a factory and an extension to a Government-financed factory. In Aberdeen, an extension to a factory. The last is due for completion next June. I cannot yet give completion dates for the two others.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these factories were intended to reduce the present abnormal unemployment in Aberdeen, city and county, but that they have not had that effect? What does he propose to do about it? Does he propose to subsidise further factories?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The City of Aberdeen and the Buckie-Peterhead area of Aberdeenshire are both on the D.A.T.A.C. list, and I hope that they will attract new industry.

Fishmeal Factories

Mr. Grimond: asked the President of the Board of Trade if there is now sufficient fishmeal to keep the factories occupied; and what is now the purpose of maintaining the duty on imported her rings for meal when some of the factories are sometimes closed for lack of supplies.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Board of Trade announced on 20th November, 1958, that it was considering an application for the exemption from import duty of herring imported for reduction to meal and oil. I hope it will be possible to announce a decision soon.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful for that Reply, but has the Minister any up-to-date information about the position of the fishmeal factories and whether they have supplies or not?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There are some reports from the factory which are being studied at the moment in connection with this application.

Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the decision of the Dunlop Rubber Company to close down the factory at Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, whether he will make further efforts to bring new industries to the city.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Board of Trade will continue to bring North Staffordshire, including Stoke-on-Trent, to the attention of suitable firms.

Dr. Stross: Does the Minister appreciate that we have been rather unfortunate with reference to the rubber industry? Does he remember that the Michelin extension was diverted to another county, and now we are to lose

the Dunlop Company, with the loss of 400 further workers? Will he at least ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if nothing else can be done, he should abolish the Purchase Tax on pottery?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question raises a much wider issue. I am glad to say that the reduction of the work at Etruria, I think it is, is the result of concentration at another factory in Stoke-on-Trent.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a few feet of polythene tubing, with an appropriate dowel, may be sold free of Purchase Tax, whereas a hula hoop is subject to Purchase Tax; and, in view of the desirability of increasing the sale of hula hoops as an encouragement to personal fitness, whether he will now relieve factory-made hula hoops from Purchase Tax, thus placing them on terms of parity with home-made hula hoops constructed from polythene tubing and a dowel.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Hula hoops are taxable if supplied complete or ready for assembly. I see no justification for treating them differently from other toys.

Mr. Nabarro: Why are they taxed as toys at all? Why should they not be regarded as, for instance, sports requisites? Is there not a direct relation between a hula hoop and a tyre, and, as neither tyres nor inner tubes are taxed, why are hula hoops taxed?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend, in his enthusiasm for personal fitness, seems to share the enthusiasm for the hula hoop of Mr. Flook in today's Daily Mail.I can quite understand it, because he enjoys being at the centre of things.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Purchase Tax is paid on musical instruments purchased by the Brigade of Guards but not on musical instruments purchased by the band of the Royal Air Force and the band of the Royal Marines; and why he is exercising discrimination in favour of the Royal Air


Force and Royal Marines, having regard to the need for a high level of recruiting for all the corps named.

Mr. Amory: There is no discrimination. For historical reasons the Services have differing ways of achieving the same result. Army bands receive a cash allowance from public funds to maintain and replace their instruments, and that allowance takes account of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Music Council has constantly drawn attention to the fact that this discrimination exists and that the Customs and Excise have been deliberately collecting Purchase Tax on musical instruments used by the Brigade of Guards Band but not on those used by the bands of other corps? Would he not undertake to examine this matter again? Surely, such a large body of professional opinion cannot constantly be wrong in the matter.

Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend studies my reply, he will see that there is no discrimination, because where cash grants are made the level of the grants takes account of the fact that Purchase Tax will be payable on the instruments themselves. But I understand my hon. Friend's interest in anything that affects the production and the propagation of sound.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend include in his researches the fact that any regimental band buying a bugle pays no tax upon it, but if a cornet is bought for the same regimental band it bears tax at 30 per cent.? Would my right hon. Friend comment on that thoroughly unsatisfactory position.

Mr. Amory: I will investigate that point and write to my hon, Friend.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that traders have requested Customs and Excise to define when an advertising leaflet, which is not fully printed, is chargeable with Purchase Tax, and that Customs and Excise have stated they are unable to do so; and, in view of the confusion thus caused, especially having regard to wide variety of designs, some of which attract Purchase Tax and others of which do not,

whether he will now exempt from Purchase Tax all advertising leaflets as being essential requisites of industry, trade, and commerce.

Mr. Amory: As I told my hon. Friend on 10th February, the Customs and Excise are, at the trade's request, reviewing the criteria of tax liability in this part of the stationery field. Partly printed advertising leaflets are included in this review.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend have some regard to the fact that at the 1955 General Election more than 600 Members of the House put out advertising leaflets in the form of election addresses, some of which attracted Purchase Tax on account of the fact that the Customs and Excise said that they were advertising leaflets part-printed, whereas others did not? Is not this a thoroughly invidious state of affairs, and will not my right hon. Friend, in the interests of Tory candidature, put the matter right before the next General Election?

Mr. Amory: In the interest of justice, I will have regard to all appropriate considerations, but at this stage I am not quite prepared to say whether or not my hon. Friend's observations fall within that category.

Mr. Tiley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to the early removal of Purchase Tax on dustbins since they are an essential part of domestic hygiene.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Purchase Tax is charged on dustbins; and whether he will give consideration to the early removal of this tax.

Mr. Amory: Dustbins are taxed under the provisions which apply Purchase Tax to domestic ironmongery and hardware generally. My hon. Friends will not expect me to anticipate my Budget decisions.

Mr. Tiley: I ought to say that I appear in this field only by kind permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Nabarro. [Laughter.] Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this type of concession would benefit public health, increase trade and reduce the cost of living?

Mr. Amory: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's observations, apart from his other distinctions, his name will now be honourably linked with dustbins. As to the second part of the question, I fear that I must not anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount collected for Purchase Tax on gramophone records.

Mr. Amory: Just under £6 million in the financial year 1957–58.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the great educational value of many gramophone records, would the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing or abolishing the tax on educational records and put these records in the same category as books?

Mr. Amory: I am giving very careful consideration, of course, to all aspects of these difficult problems.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate cost of reducing the ages for the repayment of post-war credits by 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively.

Mr. Amory: About £176 million, £258 million and £330 million.

BAGDAD PACT

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the declaration by the Minister of Defence at the Bagdad Pact and Ministerial Council, to the effect that Great Britain remained pledged to uphold all the military obligations of the Bagdad Pact, including those directed to defence of the territories of the Bagdad Pact countries against subversion, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), on 5th February.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a Question on 27th February, 1957, the Minister of Defence stated that defence against

aggression meant that British forces could interfere in a Bagdad Pact country where the ruler described any popular uprising as being due to Communist subversion? Does the Prime Minister remember that he himself proclaimed exactly the same doctrine to justify intervention in Jordan on 17th July last year? Do the replies to which he referred mean that the Government still reserve that right to interfere in the affairs of Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan at the request of the rulers of those countries?

The Prime Minister: In every case, of course, every consideration has to be given to the particular circumstances. The purpose of the Pact is to promote, so far as it is possible, a sense of stability and security.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister still regard the Bagdad Pact as the basis of the Government's Middle East policy, as it was once said to be? Does he not feel, in view of developments in Iraq, that it would be wise to make plain that this Pact is now really a northern tier agreement directed only against the possible danger of aggression from the north?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be a very great mistake if we were to do anything at the present time to weaken the sense of confidence of the countries concerned, who are members, with us, of the Bagdad Pact.

Mr. Gaitskell: That does not answer my question. Until now, it has been Her Majesty's Government's policy to regard the Bagdad Pact as the basis of their policy in the whole of the Middle East. Would it not be advisable—if not this afternoon, on some early occasion —to make plain that the situation has changed and they now look upon the Bagdad Pact as more limited in its objectives?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the situation has changed; but it is one of the bases on which we must rely.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (SCOTTISH BUSINESS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to extend the order of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure to enable it to


consider particularly the desirability of increasing the extent to which Scottish business is conducted in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I am doubtful whether it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to consider such wide proposals as the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Rankin: In the light of that Answer, and bearing in mind his former answer to me, will the Prime Minister appreciate that the Scottish Labour Party has given great consideration to this problem and believes that there is a solution which can be achieved without violating the economic integrity of the United Kingdom or involving Parliamentary separation? Will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the advisability of referring the matter to a Speaker's Conference, as the Scottish Labour Party has suggested?

The Prime Minister: There are various methods. There was the Royal Commission, which the hon. Gentleman at one time suggested, which met some four years ago. The results of its work were very helpful. There have been other changes since then as regards the Scottish Grand Committee. I think that it would, perhaps, be well to see the report of the Select Committee on Procedure before reaching any further judgment.

DEFENCE (NUCLEAR ATTACK)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister, in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the evacuation of the civil population in the event of war and to the defence of bomber and rocket bases, what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister of Defence in these matters.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Prime Minister, since it is the Government's policy to defend only air and rocket bases on the ground that the country as a whole cannot be defended against nuclear attack, to what extent he has coordinated the policy and responsibilities of the Home Department and the Ministry of Defence in this matter.

The Prime Minister: The responsibilities of the Departments concerned with defence against a possible nuclear attack on this country are clearly defined and the policy is fully co-ordinated.

Mr. Swingler: How is it possible to reconcile these policies? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary is engaged, in a very meagre way, in preparing Civil Defence against what is euphemistically called conventional air attack, while the Minister of Defence is engaged in threatening nuclear retaliation against any and every form of attack? How does the Prime Minister reconcile these policies?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing irreconcilable. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary carries out his part of the duties in close co-ordination with those of the Defence Minister.

THE PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO SOVIET UNION)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, in discussions during his proposed visit to Moscow, he is prepared to reconsider his policy on united Germany being free to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, on the maintenance of the Bagdad Pact, on armed intervention against alleged subversion in any country at the request of its Government, and on the negotiation of political settlements before accepting any substantial measure of international disarmament.

The Prime Minister: I made a full statement to the House on 5th February, and I do not think that any further amplification would be helpful.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the Soviet position on these matters is very well known and, whereas the Soviet Government would reach agreement on the basis of the proposals for disengagement and for co-operation in the Middle East advocated by the Opposition, there is no hope of agreement unless the basic positions of the Government are modified? Is the Prime Minister prepared to use them as bargaining counters when he goes to Moscow?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that he speaks—I do not know


on what authority—for the Soviet Government. I propose, if I am able to do so, to speak to the Soviet Government.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, during his forthcoming discussions with Mr. Khrushchev, he will seek an assurance that, in any proposed talks or agreement concerning Germany leading to an eventual peace treaty, such treaty will contain adequate clauses to secure the removal of any known Nazi judge or general from office, in either East or West Germany, in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, and a joint commission to investigate the charges and allegations that there are now in office in West Germany 596 jurists who served in Hitler's Special Courts.

The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate what matters may be raised at these discussions.

Mr. Lewis: Without asking the Prime Minister to anticipate, may we ask whether or not he agrees that it would be a good thing if these former Nazis, who are alleged to be in both East and West Germany, were removed from these State positions and quasi-State positions? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind if he has the opportunity of raising this question?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But that is not the point raised in the Question. The responsibility for judicial appointments in the Federal Republic is, of course, a matter for the German authorities. That has been the position since 1949, but Her Majesty's Government retain an interest in this matter and it is one about which I feel sure the Federal Government recognise their responsibilities.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will specify the topics he intends to discuss with the Ministers of the Russian Government during his forthcoming visit to Russia.

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to disclose in advance what particular topics will be raised by Her Majesty's Government during these talks.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware—and, of course, he is—of the close inter-relation between culture, trade, industry and international relations? Will he, therefore, seek to encourage

greater intercourse between Russia and the West in these matters?

The Prime Minister: I am aware, of course, of the importance of this question.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister responsible in any way for the suggestion that he will bring back £1,200 million worth of orders from Russia?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been reading the newspapers.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (STAFF)

Mr. Albu: asked the Prime Minister (1) how many heads of divisions, or scientists at similar level, have left Harwell during each of the last two years;
(2) what has been the increase in numbers of senior scientific and technical staff and senior administrative staff, respectively, at Harwell over the last two years.

The Prime Minister: These are matters of day-to-day management of the Atomic Energy Authority in which I do not regard it as my duty to intervene.

Mr. Albu: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there have been very serious losses of senior scientific staff at Harwell recently which are causing very great concern? Further, is he aware that it is said that these losses are due to the fact that the establishment is now dominated by the accountancy and administrative staff, the scientists no longer being able to get on with the job of research?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There are, of course difficulties, and there are movements, some of which have value, between industry and the universities. But there certainly has been a very great advance under the present arrangements for the management of atomic affairs by the independent authority.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SELECTION OF CANDIDATES)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the recent application in this country of novel procedures for the selection of candidates for Parliamentary elections; and if he will


cause a Speaker's Conference to be called to consider the implications of such procedures.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Pannell: Does the Prime Minister understand that I am referring to the advent of primary elections in Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, under rules, of course, which would disfranchise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) if he were a constituent there? Does the Prime Minister not think that this sort of thing, taken in conjunction with what has happened in Belfast, North, has imported into British public life a feature which really demands more than superficial examination?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the constitutional position is quite clear. Anybody can become a candidate for Parliament provided that he fulfils the necessary conditions laid down by law. I think that the House as a whole would agree that those criteria are not very exacting.

FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at Glasgow on 7th February, alleging that the recent Soviet proposals on Berlin contain a threat to Western communications with that city, represented the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. What my right hon. and learned Friend said was that the Soviet Note of 27th November contained a unilateral denunciation of what we considered to be their obligations with regard to our right of access to Berlin.

Mr. Zilliacus: Without justifying this unilateral action, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the Soviet Government have proposed to keep the communications open, merely replacing Soviet officials with East German officials? Could not the threat be overcome by merely treating these East German officials as Soviet agents?

Hon. Members: Why?

The Prime Minister: The Question asked whether I approve of and agree

with the speech which my right hon. and learned Friend made. I said that I did, and all the more so because the Soviet Note had unilaterally denounced what we regarded as being one of their obligations. That is a matter which has to be discussed and threshed out.

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now pay an official visit to areas where the percentage rate of unemployment is six or more.

The Prime Minister: It would not be possible for me to pay such a visit in the near future. But Departmental Ministers are at present engaged on a series of visits to places with a serious unemployment problem and are reporting on the results of their investigations.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, while we fully realise that he would be fully occupied in visiting all such places, nevertheless if he had accepted this suggestion when I made it some months ago his job would have been very much lighter than it will be if he makes these visits now? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to go, if he has the opportunity, and explain to these people that they have never had it so good?

The Prime Minister: What we are trying to do, and what I think the whole House would like us to try to do, is to concentrate on trying to relieve these areas which have a special problem of their own.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the statement that Ministers will be reporting to the Prime Minister on their visits to these areas, can we expect a new statement on Government policy to bring work to this part of the country?

The Prime Minister: This matter is continuously before the House, and there are opportunities, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take them, to debate it as well as discuss it by question and answer.

NON-AGGRESSION PACT

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he now intends to follow up the suggestion that he has


made of a non-aggression pact with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(2) if he is now prepared to make an agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics guaranteeing that neither country would use the hydrogen bomb against the other.

The Prime Minister: I said before and I still feel that if a non-aggression pact can help to reduce tension, I am in favour of it. But I went on to say that it is deeds not words that matter.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the first part of his Answer, but on the second question, concerning the use of the hydrogen bomb one against the other, may I ask whether he does not think that the world would breathe a sigh of relief if we in Britain at least tried to make that kind of agreement with any other country in the world? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that men and women are tired of old men in uniform following stupid cold war policies?

The Prime Minister: I think that what the world wants is to try to create political conditions which will reduce the tension and the danger.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have a short statement to make on business.
Conversations have taken place through the usual channels and it is now considered that it would be more convenient for the debate on Foreign Affairs to take place on Thursday of this week rather than on Wednesday.
In consequence of this change, the business on Wednesday will be the completion of the Committee stage of the House Purchase and Housing Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: We were glad to agree to this proposition so as to make it possible for Ministers to spend the whole time on Wednesday in trying to get a final settlement of the Cyprus problem. We hope that, in consequence, it will be possible for both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to take part in the debate on Thursday.

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which Her Majesty's Opposition accepted this suggestion, which I think will fit in with the national interest.

MARLBOROUGH HOUSE

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the offer made by the United Kingdom Government at the Montreal Conference, in September, to provide a house for Commonwealth meetings held in London. As the House will remember, this suggestion was welcomed by the Conference.
Her Majesty the Quean, who has shown a close personal interest in this project, has graciously offered to place her Palace of Marlborough House at the disposal of the United Kingdom Government so that it may be available for this purpose. I have expressed to Her Majesty our deep sense of obligation and gratitude and I have received messages from the Prime Ministers of other Commonwealth Governments welcoming this generous offer.
It is a generous and imaginative gesture on the Queen's part to make a royal palace available for this Commonwealth purpose. While it is so used, the Royal Family will no longer have at their disposal a house which has traditionally been the house either of the Queen Mother or the heir to the Throne. I feel confident that if, when the time comes, no other suitable residence is in the disposition of the Crown, a future Parliament will think it right to make appropriate provision for the Prince of Wales to have a home of his own.
The accommodation at Marlborough House will be both ample and suitable for Commonwealth meetings in London. Its main purpose will be to serve as a meeting place for Commonwealth Prime Ministers whenever they assemble in London. It can also accommodate other Commonwealth conferences, the meetings on economic matters which it was agreed at Montreal to co-ordinate under the name of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council, and meetings of the Commonwealth Economic Committee and other similar bodies.
The staff of the Commonwealth Economic Committee can be housed there and


we would also hope to provide a Commonwealth reference library which might be open to students and visitors from other parts of the Commonwealth.
No major structural alterations will be needed. Some adjustment and modernisation will, however, be required to adapt the building to its new purpose and new furnishings and equipment will need to be installed. This must take time to complete. The cost, together with the cost of maintaining it thereafter, will be borne, subject to the approval of Parliament, on the Votes of the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I say that we on this side of the House are very glad to hear that Marlborough House will be made available for Commonwealth purposes, and that we greatly appreciate the action of Her Majesty in making it so available?

Mr. Grimond: May I say, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that we wish to be associated with the expression of gratitude to Her Majesty which has been made by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister?

Sir J. Hutchison: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider whether this generous gift, and a suitable debut in connection with this gift, might not be consideration by the Commonwealth of the situation which has arisen in connection with the Free Trade Area proposals?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. I hope that the House will content itself today with an expression of agreement with this proposal, which began at Montreal, and our gratitude to Her Majesty for the imaginative thought that she has had in making this famous palace available for the purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [The Prime Minister.]

JOHN WATERS (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)

3.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegation that John Waters was assaulted on the 7th December, 1957, at Thurso, and the action taken by the Caithness Police in connection therewith.
In the statement which I made to the House yesterday, I announced the Government's decision to set up this Tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. I think that there was general approval of this decision.
My statement made it clear, and this, too, seemed to be generally accepted, that in accordance with our traditions, long supported by Members of all political parties, the decision of the Lord Advocate not to prosecute in this case was one for him alone, and that it will not be for the Tribunal to review this decision.
The Tribunal will, however, be able to make the fullest inquiries into the allegations that the boy was assaulted, and into the steps which were taken by the police to investigate and report on the case. The Tribunal will have the same power with regard to the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents as the Court of Session. It will have at its disposal the services of an advocate and also of a solicitor to make any necessary inquiries.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) yesterday suggested that it would be inappropriate for the Lord Advocate to present the case to the Tribunal on this occasion. I should like to inform him and the House that we intend to arrange for the case to be presented to the Tribunal by an advocate who has not been in any way concerned with the question of prosecution, and who will be selected in consultation with the Chairman. I should also perhaps remind the House that Section 2 of the Act of 1921 provides as follows:
A tribunal …shall not refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal it is in the public interest expedient so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given;


A similar Motion has been tabled in another place, and will be moved there on Wednesday. Once the Resolutions have been passed by both Houses, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint the Tribunal. I can, however, tell the House that we have in mind a Tribunal of three, the Chairman being one of Her Majesty's Scottish judges. The names of the members will be announced as soon as possible after the Resolutions have been passed.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I think that the House will be grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement today, and for the arrangements which he is to make with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chairman of the Tribunal.
There is one question which I should like to ask him, which may be due to my ignorance of the working of the Tribunal of Inquiry procedure. There are a number of people against whom allegations have been made, and, clearly, a Tribunal does not start with an acceptance of the guilt or innocence of any persons. I take it that any person who feels himself involved will be entitled to be represented by counsel, if he so desires.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Before we agree to this proposal, I think that we should consider a little just what we are doing and just what sort of a precedent we are setting. I am sure that all of us were very moved indeed by what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said to us recently, and, indeed, were equally impressed, but perhaps in another way, by the Lord Advocate's reply.
Let us consider for a moment what this proposal is, what will be the effect of a finding on two policemen, Mr. Gunn and Mr. Harper. This Tribunal will have to decide, in effect, whether these two men are or are not guilty of a criminal offence. If it is said that these two police constables are guilty, can they remain in the police force? Of course not. Their moral position as policemen will have gone. They will be condemned and will suffer the penalty.
The Government are, in fact, doing this. They are saying that two men, against whom no charge has been framed, who are unprotected by the rules of evidence, who are denied the shield of the presumption of innocence, are to be tried by an extraordinary Tribunal, the decision of which will be fatal and destructive to their careers and to their characters, and which will be far more damning than that of an ordinary legitimate court.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like extraordinary tribunals, as I think the House knows. I do not think that this is a just procedure. May I remind the House of words which were used in this Chamber over twenty years ago, by Sir Alfred Butt who, hon. Members may remember, was condemned by the "Jimmy Thomas inquiry," the Budget Disclosure Inquiry. These were this words:
Conscious as I was of the grave injustice done to me, I knew I could rest assured … that the matter would not be allowed to remain where it is, and that I should have an absolute right to be tried in a court of justice, where my case could be tried alone, where I should have full notice of the charge made against me, where only properly admissible evidence would be given both for me and against me, but where no matters concerning other people of which I had never heard and whose very existence was unknown to me, would be introduced, with all the prejudice that such introduction might invoke. To my horror I learned yesterday for the first time that no such opportunity was to be afforded to me. There is to be no prosecution; my case is never to be tried.
There was to be no prosecution, the Attorney-General had explained to the House, because the prejudice created by the Tribunal was such as to make a fair trial impossible.
Sir Alfred went on to say:
I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to visualise the position in which I now find myself. I have been condemned, and apparently I must suffer for the rest of my life from a finding against which there is no appeal, upon evidence which apparently does not justify a trial, and there is now no method open to me by which I can bring the true and full facts, before a jury of my fellow-men.
He added, a little later:
If any good may come from this, the most miserable moment of my life. I can only hope that my position may do something to prevent any other person in this country being subject to the humiliation and wretchedness which I have suffered, without trial, without appeal and without redress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1936; Vol. 313, c. 415 and 416.]


I, too, hope that those words, spoken over twenty years ago, may not be forgotten, and that we shall not lightly decide to place these two humble Scottish police constables, who have a right to trial and rights to justice, just as John Waters has these rights, in a position in which they may be condemned without appeal, without charge, without rules of evidence and without presumption of innocence.
So much for that aspect of the matter. It is, I believe, utterly wrong to use this procedure of tribunal as a means of short-circuiting the ordinary criminal law of the land. Least of all should we do so when there is other and available procedure by which the courts act, either by prosecution if that is considered proper, or by civil action.
I would say that there are two questions which seem to me to be fairly and properly raised by the original Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson):

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the case of John Waters and to advise this House whether the said John Waters was assaulted by certain police officers as alleged, and in what circumstances it was decided that no prosecution should be instituted.]

To summarise them, they are these: first, whether this boy was assaulted; secondly, whether the prosecution was hushed up.

The first is a matter which I do not believe it is right for this Tribunal to consider. It is the second one, the question whether the prosecution was hushed up, what happened after the point where it went to the Procurator-Fiscal, when it went to the Crown Counsel, when it went to the Lord Advocate, when new evidence and a new statement were brought to the Lord Advocate by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, when presumably that went down the line—what happened to it then? These are the kind of matters for which an inquiry is proper. These are the kind of matters which an inquiry is the only means of finding out, and it is these matters which are deliberately and specifically excluded by the terms of reference of the Motion.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, that we do not accept this Motion, and that we ask the Government to reconsider it.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for the courtesy he showed me yesterday and for the statement he made about the way in which the lad Waters is to be represented should this Tribunal be held. I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for the way in which he has handled that matter, and I hope that nothing I say today will be regarded as being a discourteous reply to the action he has taken.
I find myself unable to support this Motion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has alluded to that tragic afternoon when a former Minister of the Crown and a private Member withdrew from our proceedings on the finding of that Tribunal. Sir, I was a comparatively young Member of the House in those days, but the punishment inflicted by the procedure applied to Mr. J. H. Thomas appeared to me to be so appalling, having regard to the history of that gentleman in this House, that I absented myself deliberately from the House on that day so that I should take no part in the proceedings. Therefore, the attitude I adopt towards this Motion is not something merely confined to the Motion.
Whenever we get into one of these difficulties, we fall back on this method of tribunals, and when the finding of the tribunal is received, Member after Member gets up to protest against the way in which some person or other, whom we did not have in mind when we started on the proceedings, has been maligned and smeared—to use a modern term— by evidence which he has had no opportunity to rebut.
In this connection, let us think of the last case—the gossip on the grouse moor, what a girl said on Woking station, a girl who had a brother who had achieved considerable fame and who had a chance at last of figuring in the newspapers as a person if not of fame at least of notoriety.
The whole business of this kind of thing, when we are faced with the results, is always repugnant to the House. In this case, an allegation was made by a father


in a police station on 7th December, 1957, that his son, who was with him, had been assaulted by two police officers. That was accepted by the inspector in charge, but what happened after that we have not yet been able to discover, nor, in view of the way in which the Motion has been framed, shall we be able to discover it now. That is the important thing.
It may be that the boy suffers from hallucinations and that he was not assaulted by a police officer. A doctor's report has been submitted to the House saying what the doctor saw on the boy. There has been a statement by a woman who found the boy lying in the street and who took him in, bathed and washed him, and arranged for him to be taken to the doctor.
I cannot think that in England—and in this matter English law differs from Scottish law—there would have been other than a prosecution, quite possibly instituted by the police authority. As I understand, in Scotland a prosecution can be launched only with the assent of the Lord Advocate. When I was Home Secretary, I believed and practised this view of policy in the matter: if a police officer had in some way or other committed a breach of the recognised code of police duty in such a way that he was amenable either to a disciplinary tribunal or to a prosecution in the courts, in his interest and in the interests of relationship between the police and the public it was desirable that he should stand his trial in a magistrates' court and, if necessary, before such higher tribunal as the magistrates decided.
It is essential that in this matter of the relationship between the police and the public we should maintain the sound doctrine that a policeman, no matter how high or low in rank, is as amenable to the ordinary law of the country as any other citizen. If he commits a breach of the law, he should not be exempt from standing his trial like every ordinary citizen merely because he has been enrolled in the police force.
I have a Question on the Order Paper today, Question No. 114. I do not blame the length of supplementaries to Questions for its not being reached today. In it I ask the Lord Advocate a question to which I shall get an answer later in the day. I ask whether at any time he or anyone in his Department responsible

to him took from Waters, or any of the other witnesses, a statement of what his evidence would be if there were a trial. I asked the question of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland last Tuesday and I was informed that if I wanted an answer I should put a Question on the Order Paper.
I submitted two Questions to the Table. One asked the same question as Question No. 114, of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Table refused it on the ground that the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was not responsible and that as he had said he was not responsible, I could not ask him a Question. I do not accept the view that the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility. Last week the Under-Secretary said that he regarded the Tribunal proposed this afternoon as inappropriate. This afternoon the name of the Secretary of State appears on the Motion, but the name of the Lord Advocate does not.
I cannot help thinking that, in spite of anything which was said yesterday, the House is entitled to know some of the proceedings which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate took. He stands very much in the position of the old Grand Jury in England. The Grand Jury in England had to call before it all the evidence for the prosecution in a case before it could say that there was "No True Bill". It did not have to concern itself with the defence. What it had to do was to decide whether there was a prima faciecase for prosecution. If there was, the case was brought before a jury at quarter sessions or assizes, and a decision was there reached in accordance with the rules of evidence.
In this sort of case the Lord Advocate occupies very much the same position in Scotland. We ought to be certain that all the evidence submitted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)—and we understand that there were 17 witnesses whose names the hon. Member submitted—was examined before the Lord Advocate decided that there was no case on which a prosecution could be based.
I hope that even at this stage it may be possible not to proceed on the lines now suggested, in view of the always unsatisfactory nature of the position in which we find ourselves at the end of the proceedings of these tribunals. If there


were a prosecution it would now, but not after today, still be possible to get the case put before the appropriate court in Scotland, resulting in a satisfactory result, whether conviction or acquittal according to the evidence.
I want to call attention to an article by the political correspondent of The Times,in today's issue. It says:
The fact that such an inquiry is to be held is regarded in Government circles as enough to rule out the possibility that any prosecution could be brought in the light of the tribunal's report to Parliament. The point is made"—
apparently this is in Government circles, whatever that might mean, and I am not trying to foist this opinion on to right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite—
that it would not be impossible to empanel a jury that could be reckoned to have been uninfluenced by reports of the tribunal's proceedings.
I think that that last sentence alone makes it important that this case should be tried according to the rules of evidence and that a prosecution should be instituted in the Scottish courts. I regret —and I say that quite sincerely—that I am unable to support the Motion now before the House.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: I am bound to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I found them short, concise and entirely convincing. To me it came as a shock that my hon. Friends on this side of the House, who have long and properly taken a pride in their struggle against administrative tribunals, should, where there is a case of an assault charge against a policeman, think it necessary that a special tribunal should be set up.
I can see no reason why the matter should not go by the ordinary processes of law, if necessary by civil action or criminal action, for the results would be exactly the same in either case. There may be something to be said for having this form of Tribunal to deal with the actions taken by the Caithness police, once it is found that anything wrong has been done.
I associate myself entirely with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said,

all the more so because—and I say so with respect—I am proud that we share the same profession.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I think that there are many hon. Members who share the misgivings of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), but what else could we have done? It may be that we should have some other procedure but, speaking as a layman, I know of no other procedure.
The fact is that after this case had become common knowledge through the newspapers, and many allegations had been made both in this House and outside, it would have been exceedingly unfair not only to Waters but to the Caithness police to leave the matter as it then stood. So I think that the first lesson is that we may need some other procedure but, at the moment, we have no other procedure for righting this sort of situation.
The second part of the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and, I understand, supported by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East, raises the question whether it would be right or proper for this Tribunal of Inquiry to inquire into why a prosecution was not brought. We have been told on high legal authority that it is quite contrary to precedent and that it would be improper to inquire into the reasons why the Lord Advocate exercised his discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute in this case.
Many of us feel that long before this matter reached the Lord Advocate certain evidence must have emerged and that there must have been a long chain of inquiry, and so on, about which we are in doubt. I think that the House is entitled to ask for some guidance from the Law Officers both of Scotland and perhaps of England, first, as to whether this Tribunal of Inquiry, which it is proposed to set up to inquire into the action taken by the Caithness police, should inquire into the action taken in relation to the prosecution, or merely into the action taken in connection with the investigation of the allegations; and, secondly, if it is not to inquire why a


prosecution was not instituted, whether we shall leave this matter in a satisfactory way.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has expressed the anxieties shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If this matter goes to a Division, I shall vote for the Motion, but I shall do so because I do not see how, having reached this position, we can do anything else.
I hope that when this inquiry is over the House will take some opportunity of considering in a general context the advisability of this procedure. Each time we use it, hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the debate which usually follows, express their dissatisfaction and anxiety—I think that that is the right word—about what goes on during this procedure.
This case emphasises its defects. At least on the last two occasions of the Lynskey Tribunal and the alleged Bank Rate leak what the Tribunal was inquiring into was some kind of possible misconduct by public men which would not be any sort of criminal offence and could not, therefore, be investigated in the ordinary courts. If there was to be ventilation and investigation into it all, some extraordinary tribunal had to do it.
This is quite different. This is a suggestion of a criminal offence and I cannot but be very unhappy, for the reasons which the hon. and learned Gentleman put and which I will not repeat because he put them so well and so shortly, at people's reputations being put in peril in this rather informal way.
I am sorry that Waters, or his father, did not see fit to take the ordinary remedy of a British subject and issue a writ—there is legal aid for those who are not sufficiently well-equipped with money to proceed on their own—and deal with this matter in the ordinary way in the ordinary courts. However, that has not been done and a great deal of public attention has been drawn to the matter. There is a Motion on the Order Paper and, therefore, I think that we must go forward, but because I am going to support it I wanted to let the House know in what state of mind I support it. I hope that this matter will be properly

inquired into once we have finished this particular use of this procedure.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I listened to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I agreed with it in all but one very vital sentence to which I will refer later. I have expressed before my detestation of these tribunals and my profound regret that sometimes we have found it incumbent upon us to use procedure in which the rules of evidence do not apply.
I have expressed before the feeling that it is an astonishing thing that to get a man convicted of a crime we must have sworn and direct evidence, but we can bring against a public servant an accusation which may break him for life on the basis of hearsay, of gossip, of tittle-tattle and of drawing inferences. I regret that very much. For once I find myself in the position, if the Prime Minister will permit it, of defending him and saying that he should be congratulated sincerely by the House on having taken a prompt decision on this matter. The House ought to consider what possible steps were open to the right hon. Gentleman.
The dilemma with which we are faced is a very real one and I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend when he says that the remedy of prosecution or a civil action is still open. As I see it, it would be most improper now for a prosecution to be initiated by the Lord Advocate against his view, and certainly not by anyone else. I do not think that the remedy of a prosecution is open and, even if it were technically open, it would, in the circumstances, be too late and difficult to use that procedure.
I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). A civil action never was a remedy. This vital advice was given to Sir William Gordon Cumming, in the baccarat case, "Go into court and defend your own reputation where the whole onus of proof is different, the issue to be decided is different and the court has to consider the question of damages." A civil remedy, if ever it was open, could not provide a possible answer.
We are left to consider a situation in which we have to face one supreme and important fact. Once these facts were


called to the attention of the House, very properly, very moderately and very clearly by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) —who enjoys a reputation among hon. Members on both sides as one who is unlikely to overstate a case and who would take a course of this kind only in the belief that he was serving the interests of justice—the police were virtually condemned.
An inquiry became as necessary in the interests of the police as in the interests of the boy. We cannot hush the matter up without leaving the two policemen labouring under an imputation which is about as grave as can be made against a police officer. A charge has been made in public and spread all over the land, and the police officers are entitled to be defended.
What are the possibilities? There is this rather wretched, hybrid form of Tribunal. I speak here subject to correction by the Law Officers, and I have not checked it up, but I believe that there is no obligation upon the Tribunal to say, "We will hear hearsay evidence." So far as I know, it is within the power of a Tribunal in this sort of case to say, "This is a substantially judicial matter upon which evidence will be available, so we will limit ourselves to the hearing of sworn evidence."
If it is possible for the Tribunal to take that course, I hope that it will do so. It can certainly take the line that it will start with sworn evidence, and not decide to hear anything else unless it declares a special reason for so doing, which reason arises from the facts. That seems to offer one limitation to the objections raised to the setting up of a Tribunal.
Another course is to set up a Select Committee, or a special Committee of the House. I am not sure that the House ever distinguishes itself as a judicial tribunal. In any event, speaking from memory, in the last lamentable examole, the case of George Edalji, I believe that it is now acknowledged that a gross miscarriage of justice was perpetrated, when a man was sent to a long term of imprisonment in Rugeley, in 1899–1900.
After he had served for three years, the Home Office set up a committee which

decided, partly upon the evidence of a Mr. Gurrin—who was also concerned in the Adolf Beck miscarriage of justice, and another later case—that George Edalji was innocent, but that he had contributed to his guilt by writing the anonymous letters which led to his arrest. The Law Society put him back on its rolls, and it was only after another thirty years that, at a trial in Wednesbury, a man was convicted of writing the anonymous letters and made a detailed and formal confession of their authorship.
I do not want to reopen any recent wounds of the Leader of the House—indeed, I am not quite sure whether I am not blaming him falsely, and whether it was not during the period when the present Lord Tenby was Home Secretary —but the one-man inquiry into the case of Timothy John Evans was not regarded as a very satisfactory form of procedure by anyone who took the trouble to read that elaborate and most remarkable account of the proceedings.
So we have the possibility of an inquiry by three Members of the House, or by learned counsel, sitting as they do behind closed doors—at any rate, some of the evidence given before the Henderson Tribunal was given behind closed doors— or by this Tribunal, headed by a High Court judge and two distinguished counsel, whose sole function is to ascertain the facts, as they must now be ascertained.
I had very great sympathy with the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend that the Tribunal's terms of reference were too narrow, but when I expressed that sympathy I had not read the exact words of the Motion. I think that the words
the action taken by the Caithness Police
widen the matter a little because, if the procedure is the same as that which operates in England an investigation into the action of the Caithness police would involve an investigation of the action of the police in refusing to prosecute.

Mr. Paget: The procedure in England is for the police to prosecute, but the police never prosecute in Scotland; it is the Procurator-Fiscal who prosecutes, and he is not part of the Caithness police. We cannot inquire into the action of the Procurator-Fiscal.

Mr. Hale: I should think that the Prime Minister would readily agree that


the most important part of the inquiry will concern the question why, if there were a substantial prima faciecase, that case was not presented? I should have thought that that was a more fundamental and vital matter than the other, and I hope that the Prime Minister can give us an assurance that nothing in these terms of reference is designed to preclude the Tribunal from inquiring into the question why a case was not presented.
Some of my hon. Friends will recall one classic case in this connection, which I hope the Prime Minister will read before he goes to Moscow. I refer to the case of Oscar Slater and its consequences, which not so many remember, to the fate of Inspector Trench, who tried to call the attention of the Scottish police to the innocence of Oscar Slater and finally made a statement to the Press concerning evidence which had been suppressed. Inspector Trench was driven from office and prosecuted on a faked-up charge. His name was cleared by the Tribunal before that faked-up charge was brought, but he was left to drift away and die an honourable death in the war a year or two later, unhonoured and uncleared by the public at large. That blot still rests on the name of justice.
Much as I detest these tribunals, and without withdrawing a word of what I said in the debate on the Bank Rate Tribunal, I have come to the conclusion, beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, that the dilemma which faces us arises primarily from the continued existence of quasi judicial-political legal officers—they are not to be criticised, because they have to exercise this extremely difficult and often conflicting duty—and the fact that we have this fantastic situation where, instead of having a Minister of Justice who is responsible politically and legal officers who are responsible legally, we try to combine their functions.
That is the dilemma with which we are faced, and I have no hesitation in saying that in those circumstances the remedy proposed by the Prime Minister is the best one. It is the proper course to take, and the Prime Minister should be congratulated for having broken down any possible obstruction and taken it as soon as possible.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I seldom find myself in agreement with the

hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), but I agree with most of what he has said today, apart from the conclusions he has arrived at as a result of his researches into history. We must consider the position in which we find ourselves. Allegations have been made that a criminal offence has taken place, and the people who make these allegations must be ready to substantiate them before any tribunal before whom they may be called. The names of serving police officers have been mentioned in this House, and they are entitled to have their honour cleared, if it should be cleared.
I say nothing about the merits of the case, because I know nothing about them, but it is very dangerous for any hon. Member to say—as I regretted hearing the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) say—that there should be a prosecution. That is exactly what we must fight against, after matters have been discussed in this House and a certain amount of heat has been engendered. We should not say that a prosecution of anybody—whether or not he be a Member of the House—should follow, because, whether or not it is true, it is bound to be said throughout the country that a prosecution was initiated or, in another case, withdrawn, upon political pressure.
When the day arrives when prosecutions are brought or withdrawn, or can even be said to be brought or withdrawn, by reason of political pressure, the administration of justice in this country, of which we are so proud, will begin to break down. Therefore, in this case, there should not be a criminal prosecution.

Mr. Paget: Owing to political pressure a Tribunal is to be set up. That Tribunal is to decide, on much less fair terms, whether these two men are guilty of a crime. Its decision will punish these men. How can that be said not to be a prosecution? Further, how can it said that it does not arise from political pressure?

Mr. Doughty: When I talk about a criminal prosecution I refer to a criminal prosecution in our criminal courts. That is a point that we must exclude from any discussion in this House.
I raised a supplementary question yesterday, after the Prime Minister's statement, when I said that it would be a bad day for this country when our Scots or


English Law Officers, who have a political and a judicial function, had to explain to the House their reasons for action which they took solely in their judicial and not political capacity. When they are explaining a Bill which is going through the House they can be questioned and criticised, and their suggestions can be divided against, but when, in reference to action which they take in a judicial capacity, they say, "I took the following decision," even if hon. Members disagree I would ask them not to suggest that any impropriety has taken place. If they do make such a suggestion they will be straining the sanctity of the correct judicial system in this country.
That being the position, the course advocated by the Government is the only one open to the House. Any form of inquiry which is now held must be open to criticism. Some people will say that it was set up only because of political pressure, as clearly is the case when no criminal prosecution has been brought.
A Select Committee would be most inappropriate. In my opinion, this is the only course which we can take to bring an end to rumours and accusations which cannot be answered by those concerned. Whatever the truth may be, I hope that it will be discovered and published by this experienced Tribunal.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Before the House makes up its mind upon this important question, I want to make a few observations upon the scope of the inquiry and its procedure. The Motion asking for a Select Committee to inquire into the case asks the Tribunal
to advise this House whether … John Waters was assaulted by certain police officers … and in what circumstances it was decided that no prosecution should be instituted.
It is suggested that the terms of reference of the Tribunal which it is now proposed to set up should be to inquire into
the allegation that John Waters was assaulted on the 7th December, 1957 … and the action taken by the Caithness Police in connection therewith.
That excludes from the inquiry any consideration of the question why the decision not to prosecute was taken.
As has been pointed out, it is not for the Caithness police to decide whether or

not to prosecute. All that they did was to report the matter to the Procurator-Fiscal. The Prime Minister yesterday informed the House of the decision taken to set up this inquiry, and he enunciated two principles underlying that decision. The first was that a decision whether or not a person should be prosecuted is a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide without political pressure.
I entirely endorse and support what has been said upon that subject. It is a matter of principle which would be subscribed to by every lawyer. It is a matter of pride to us that our administration of justice is so free from and independent of any kind of political pressure, and we want to maintain that situation.
Before the Tribunal begins its activities, it should be made clear what the application of the principle that I have enunciated means to the fate of the two police officers concerned. Does it mean that whatever conclusion the Tribunal may come to they will not be prosecuted? That is what it ought to mean. Political pressure to set up this Tribunal has undoubtedly been brought, and it should be made clear at the outset that whatever may be the result the police officers, as such, will not be prosecuted.
I do not think that we can carry the matter so far as to say that whatever may be the result they shall remain police officers. Quite clearly, that is something that would have to be decided by the persons responsible for the police force. It shows the kind of deep waters we get into as soon as we start examining this kind of problem.

Mr. Philip Bell: Surely it is quite impossible for these officers to be prosecuted after the inquiry. If there is any possibility, surely they could refuse to answer any questions at the inquiry.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know whether they would be entitled to claim that privilege at the inquiry or whether they can be compelled to give evidence. Certainly, if the rules of evidence as known in English courts are to apply they could not be compelled to give evidence.
The fact that the decision whether or not a person is to be prosecuted is a decision which must be free from any kind of political pressure surely does not mean that the decision can never be


called into question. It is a decision of an official of the Crown who is responsible, through the Government, to the Crown. Surely it is our function, as Members of the House of Commons, to watch over the activities of all officers of the Crown and see whether they are exercising their functions and responsibilities properly.
The Prime Minister's second principle was that public confidence in this case has been disturbed and that it is necessary to set up an inquiry to find out the true facts and allay that lack of confidence. If the Prime Minister thinks that that lack of confidence extends only 10 the activities of the Caithness police, he is mistaken. The public are also gravely disturbed, from what they have heard so far about this case, that those responsible decided not to prosecute. The decision not to prosecute took two stages, as was explained to the House in the Adjournment debate by the Lord Advocate.
The first stage was that, when this matter was reported to the Procurator-Fiscal by the Caithness police, he decided that it was of sufficient importance and gravity to refer it to the Crown Office and to take the opinion of Crown counsel. Crown counsel advised, on the information then before him—we do not know what that was or what instructions he received—that no prosecution should be taken.
The second stage was that, after the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) had collected no fewer than 17 statements from witnesses, and submitted them to the Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate reconsidered the whole case in the light of those statements and decided to support the decision which had already been taken on the advice of Crown counsel. In spite of all those statements, which I think anyone will agree constituted a strong prima faciecase, he decided not to prosecute, because of circumstances which were known to Crown counsel and to himself but which did not form part of those statements.
If public anxieties about this matter are to be allayed, it is not merely necessary that any Tribunal that looks into it shall inquire into whether the two police officers did assault John Waters, or whether the Caithness police acted properly in the matter, or whether they tried to hush it up. The public will also

want to know what information was available at the time when the decision was taken not to prosecute.
I am not suggesting that either the Crown counsel who gave advice or the Lord Advocate should be brought before the Tribunal to be cross-examined as to the reasons for their decision. I do not think that that would be a proper procedure, and it is not the one that I am advocating. I suggest that we should be assured that all the information that was available to Crown counsel and the Lord Advocate shall be made available to the Tribunal and also that the Tribunal shall be free to comment as to whether it thinks that a prosecution ought to have been brought. Then the House will be in a position to decide whether the decision not to prosecute was rightly taken or wrongly taken and, if it was wrongly taken, what are the consequences which should flow? So much for the scope of the Tribunal.
I share the anxieties which have been voiced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the procedure of these tribunals, as, indeed, nearly all lawyers do. It is something which is foreign to our judicial system. They are by nature inquisitorial. The criminal law as administered in many continental countries is inquisitorial. The court conducts the inquisition.

Mr. Charles Panned: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A previous Speaker once complained to the House that he could not hear the hon. Member who was speaking. I cannot hear my hon. Friend at the moment because of noise coming from the other side. Will you restore order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): If the hon. Member cannot hear his hon. Friend, perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) will speak a little louder.

Mr. Pannell: If I may say so with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was a rebuke to my hon. Friend, who was speaking quite loud enough to make himself heard. I was speaking about noise from the other side of the House, which prevents him from being heard. Will you cast your rebuke on that side of the House, where it belongs?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Lewisham, North was addressing me and I could hear him quite well. I am sorry that he could not be heard by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I hope that we shall conduct the debate now as quietly as we have done.

Mr. MacDermot: I am sorry if hon. Members are not interested in what I have to say. If they are not, I suggest that they should conduct their conversations somewhere else.
I was commenting upon the inquisitorial nature of proceedings which arecon-ducted by this procedure. Our method of conducting criminal cases in this country is on the basis of examination and cross-examination. That entails having two sides to the case, one side which presents the evidence and the other side which probes, cross-examines and questions it to discover the truth of it. The great difficulty which is involved in this procedure is that counsel conducting the inquiry has to try to perform both functions, to examine and cross-examine the witness.
I made some comments upon this subject in the speech which I made in the Bank Rate Tribunal debate, and I do not wish to repeat them at length. Many lawyers agree that this procedure puts counsel in an altogether impossible and invidious position. It is not merely a matter of the political issues that are involved. If counsel knows that it will be his duty to cross-examine a witness, it is very embarrassing and difficult for him to examine him in chief first. Indeed, the Attorney-General explained to us, in relation to the Bank Rate Tribunal, that the reason why, contrary to the normal rules of examination in chief, he conducted the whole of the examination in chief by means of leading questions was that he knew that he had to cross-examine the witness on a statement which he had made and that it was only by leading him through that statement that he would be able subsequently to conduct that cross-examination.
The result was that the examination in chief was not conducted fairly and properly. The essence of examination in chief is that leading questions are not asked and the witness is allowed to tell the story in his own words. He may

depart from the statement he has previously made and the court then hears, in his own words, his statement on oath. He is cross-examined on that. That cannot be done under this procedure.
The solution which I suggested at the time of the Bank Rate Tribunal, and which I respectfully put forward for consideration again, is that there should not be one but two Crown counsel involved. Both of them should be quite politically independent. The function of the first should be to lead the evidence, that is to say, to examine in chief all the witnesses who are not represented by counsel. The function of the second should be to conduct the cross-examination. If we adopted this procedure we should get nearer to the procedure with which we are familiar in our courts.

Mr. Paget: It would still be a bastard procedure.

Mr. MacDermot: It still would be a bastard procedure, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton calls it. It is not a procedure which any of us like.
However, if we are to adopt this procedure I suggest that we should try to modify the procedure which was adopted in the earlier tribunals so as to give not only to the public at large, but to the persons concerned in the Tribunal and the witnesses, the sense that they are getting a fair hearing and that the matters are fairly and squarely being presented to the Tribunal.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: I share the dislike, which has been expressed on both sides of the House, of inquiries under this Act. I should have much preferred this matter to be investigated by complaint, on indictment or criminal letters being presented against the two police constables. In view of the opinion formed by the Lord Advocate as to the adequacy of the evidence, that was clearly impossible. Accordingly, we are in the dilemma that we either must do nothing or set up an inquiry.
An inquiry under the Act is better than a loose inquiry by a single individual or by the House. Many of the difficulties which were experienced in other inquiries under the Act, such as the Bank Rate Inquiry, are not likely to be experienced


In this inquiry, because there is a precise allegation. There is an allegation of assault. Counsel appointed by the Chairman of the Tribunal will lead the evidence on, as it were, a charge of assault. Then those counsel instructed by the police constables will cross-examine. The matter will proceed, so far as the assault is concerned, as if it were a criminal trial on a charge of assault.
On the other matter—that is, what action was taken by the Caithness police —I again assume that the counsel appointed by the Chairman will lead the evidence as to the action taken and that there will be cross-examination by counsel appointed on behalf of the Chief Constable. I do not think that in this case we will be left with the difficulties with which we were presented in the other inquiries. It is absolutely essential that we must inquire and we must clear the police, if the evidence justifies them being cleared. In any case, we must satisfy the public that they should have confidence in the police and that, if circumstances make it necessary, the conduct of the police can be examined.

4.40 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I think that the House will feel that the debate we have had on the Motion has been of very considerable value. It is encouraging to us all to feel, at a moment when our minds are filled with great problems between nations and with the vast political issues that we have to think about, that the House turns, and properly turns, and tries to do justice to, individuals.
I see many of the difficulties that have been raised. I know that the House will forgive me if I try to approach them from the layman's point of view. I am not sufficiently acquainted with all the technical problems, especially with the divergencies between English and Scottish law.
On the first point raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), it is for the Tribunal to fix its own procedure. We may take it that it will, of course, allow those who are concerned to be represented by counsel. I have no doubt that. as regards the laws of evidence—although under the Act it is not actually forced to apply the strict laws of evidence—the Tribunal will try to apply them in the proper way.
We turn to the question which was first adumbrated by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and admirably set out by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), which was: what are we to do? That was the dilemma with which I was confronted. Exactly what I thought would happen has happened. After the desire which was raised, by the Motions in the House of Commons, great discussions in the newspapers, and the great blare of modern publicity, to defend the interests of the boy, having attained that, we naturally turn to the other side, and say, "Yes, but what about being fair to the police? What about those two men?" That is right and proper, too. We must be fair all round.
In the situation which has created itself, with these Motions, discussions and Questions in Parliament, and the great newspaper campaign, the police were in a sense publicly charged before the bar of public opinion. We cannot just say, "That has not happened", because they remain charged. I felt that the right thing to do was to find the proper method, or the only available method, of getting justice and fairness all round.
What are the methods? The first— proposed by the Motion, and threatened perhaps by an inconvenient Parliamentary situation, and even by a bad or unsatisfactory Division. I might have yielded and instructed the Lord Advocate to start a prosecution. Had I done so, I would have erred against the first rule that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet owe to Law Officers placed in their semi-judicial position. They have neither the right to instruct a prosecution to begin nor, for any reason whatever, to instruct that it should cease. I remember very well that I referred in passing yesterday to a great Parliamentary situation which arose from confusion about that. I will not put it higher than that.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out, and it is true, that the position of these Law Officers, a very ancient position coming down to us through the ages, is a little anomalous, in that they have a double function. They have to be members of the Government and help the Government with legislation while serving the House of Commons in its work. They also function as officers of a Ministry of Justice. That is the situation which I found, and I cannot alter


it without big, far-reaching revolutionary changes. Therefore, it seemed to me that the only thing to be done was, as hon. Gentlemen have said on both sides of the House, in the situation as it existed and had been created, was to use some machinery of inquiry.
What is the machinery? The Act under which the Tribunal was set up was passed in 1921, because the machinery of a Select Committee was not found to be very satisfactory, and I do not think that it is one which Parliament wishes to repeat. The Tribunal is, in the main, a way of calling attention to the matter, but I do not think the House of Commons wants to get into this judicial kind of inquiry itself, whether as a whole or whether by Select Committee. This method of inquiry was set up nearly forty years ago to fill a gap, as it seemed. There might still be the position, as there once was, in which the Law Officer rightly felt that no prosecution should take place, but that was not to say that the public might not feel that something ought to be cleared up.
In that position the system of inquiry has been developed. It has had its faults and its critics. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has pointed out that this is a much narrower issue and that we are not dealing with a great number of rumours and all sorts of stories. The Tribunal ought, therefore, to be able to avoid some of the difficulties and dangers which have followed from other inquiries. The whole question is: is the course of action we are taking the right one? Indeed, is it the only one, the only alternative to doing nothing. I do not think we ought to instruct a Law Officer to launch a prosecution if he thinks it wrong to do so.

Mr. Paget: Does the Prime Minister say that he is not launching a proceeding that will have all the results of a prosecution?

The Prime Minister: Prosecution, in the wider and not technical sense of the word, has been carried out by the T.V., the newspaper and by the whole machinery which has brought this matter

and these two men before the bar of public opinion. The only method is to ask this tribunal to find out what happened. When it has made its report, the House and the country will be informed of the facts which took place.
The Tribunal is rightly, properly and constitutionally instructed to find out what took place, what the facts were and what the police did about it. I do not think that it is the proper judge of whether or not the officers formed a right decision. That is not the duty of such a Tribunal and we should not ask it to do it. I am not saying that the Law Officers of the Crown stand different from any other Ministers, in the sense that they are ultimately responsible to the Crown and to Parliament. Parliament is the proper place, if their conduct is to be arraigned. If the Tribunal told us what happened that night and subsequently, and what the police did about it, that would be the best method we can now adopt.
It is a difficulty and a dilemma, but this is the only way out. The alternative is to do nothing and to let the agitation go on. I do not think that that would be better for the administration of justice in Scotland, or for the lives and careers of the policemen who are involved. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that, while we are not unconscious of certain weaknesses of the position, this is the best method to adopt.

Mr. MacDermot: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that all the information that was available to the Lord Advocate and to counsel for the Crown, the information on which it made its decision, will be made available to the Tribunal?

The Prime Minister: All the information for which the inquiry asks will be made available to it, but I must leave it to the Tribunal to carry out its own investigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegation that John Waters was assaulted on the 7th December, 1957, at Thurso, and the action taken by the Caithness Police in connection therewith.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Electricity Council and Electricity Boards, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer, as may result from increasing—

(a) to two thousand three hundred million pounds the limit imposed by subsection (5) of section fifteen of the Electricity Act, 1957, in the case of the Electricity Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board and Area Electricity Boards;
(b) to three hundred million pounds the limit imposed by subsection (7) of section forty-seven of the Electricity Act, 1947, in the case of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board; and
(c) to one hundred and thirty-five million pounds the limit imposed by the said subsection (7) (as applied by the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954) in the case of the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir NORMAN HULBERT in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS.)

4.51 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "shall" to insert:
as respects sums borrowed before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-five".
It might be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Norman, if we could discuss all the Amendments together, as they are all directed towards the same point.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Would that suggestion include the Amendment in page 2, line 4, at the end to add:
(2) Any power conferred by this Act to make an order includes power to vary any such order by a subsequent order.
(3) Any power conferred by this Act to make an order shall be exercisable by statutory

instrument, and no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before the Commons House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of that House.

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps we could take that one separately and take the other three Amendments together with that which I am moving, namely,
In page 1, line 12, to leave out "two thousand three hundred million pounds" and to insert:
eighteen hundred million pounds or such greater sum, not exceeding two thousand three hundred million pounds, as the Minister may by order specify",
In line 22, to leave out "three hundred million pounds" and to insert:
two hundred and forty million pounds or such greater sum, not exceeding three hundred million pounds, as the Secretary of State may by order specify", and
In page 2, line 4, to leave out "one hundred and thirty-five million pounds" and to insert:
one hundred and ten million pounds or such greater sum, not exceeding one hundred and thirty-five million pounds, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".

The Temporary Chairman: The Temporary Chairman indicated assent.

Mr. Maudling: During the Second Reading there was broad agreement on the lines of advance of the electricity industry for the period of its seven-year programme. There was a widespread feeling that the proposals did not provide for adequate Parliamentary control over the expenditure involved. Although it was accepted that the House is being asked, as it were, to approve the authorised capital of the undertaking and not the issued capital, it was felt that to provide authorised capital of such an amount and to carry forward perhaps for six years or more without automatic provision for Parliamentary control in the meantime was going rather too far.
A number of suggestions were made how Parliamentary control could be strengthened and the Government have carefully considered them, before coming forward with the proposal that we are now discussing. It was suggested by several hon. Members that the Select Committee should be provided with an officer analogous to the Comptroller and Auditor General to help them in their investigations. The Government will be glad to consider that suggestion, but


clearly it is not proper to put it forward as an Amendment to the current Bill. It will be advisable to have the views of the Select Committee itself before any decision is taken. I understand that the Select Committee may have advice to offer in the future.
The possibility has been canvassed of reducing substantially the total amount provided for in the Bill. In the case of the Electricity Council, the total is £900 million. This would probably be retrograde, as this industry ought to be encouraged to plan ahead for lengthy periods. Another suggestion was that of a Statutory Instrument where the annual borrowing exceeded a certain amount. There is the technical difficulty in this suggestion that the borrowings of the Electricity Council are of a rather special character. Its investment in fixed capital continues at a fairly steady level, whereas working capital requirements fluctuate widely.
Any provision which required an annual Statutory Instrument above a certain figure would run into two difficulties. If we fixed it at a reasonably high figure it would be quite arbitrary in its incidence. We might have a debate in any given year on a Statutory Instrument, but the fact that we had one would not be related to the circumstances in the industry, nor to whether the House felt the need for a debate. If, on the other hand, we fixed it at a low level, the effect would be to have a debate automatically every year. I do not think the Committee would feel it desirable in this case, or the case of nationalised industries generally, to provide for their capital programmes and borrowing programmes to be automatically debated every year in this House.
So we came to the suggestion we are placing before the Committee. The effect, broadly speaking, is to require the Minister to come to Parliament for further authority half-way through the borrowing programme envisaged by the Bill. I should like to concentrate on the proposals so far as they relate to the Electricity Council. The same principles, of course, apply to Scottish boards, although the figures are different. The Bill provided originally that the borrowing limit of the Electricity Council should be increased from £1,400 million to £2,300 million. The Amendments make

it clear that it has authority up to £1,800 million, and after that the Minister must specify any increase within the ceiling of £2,300 million and specify it in an Order subject to affirmative Resolution of this House.
The effect in terms of timing will be, roughly, that the Minister will have to come to the House for further authority about the end of 1961 or the beginning of 1962. The only way in which that could be postponed would be if the Electricity Council were able either to economise further in capital expenditure or to contribute more by way of self-financing. Those are both things which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would be glad to see happening. We feel that by this group of Amendments we have done the best we could to meet the wish of the House for further Parliamentary control without in any way impeding the general progress of the electricity industry which the House as a whole wishes to see.
I have only one word I wish to add. My noble Friend is also considering ways of improving and extending the annual White Paper on investment in the Fuel and Power Industries so as to give more information and more assistance to the House than it does at present. I hope these Amendments will commend themselves to the Committee as a whole.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: We attempted to set out our view on this matter as plainly as we could on Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) first raised this issue of the need for greater financial accountability in the course of our Second Reading discussion. He was followed by certain of his hon. Friends.
Our view was set out in these terms, that on this side of the Committee we have no objection in principle to greater Parliamentary accountability in the financial sense, provided adequate and workable machinery can be devised. That seems largely to be the difficulty. It brings to the front a very considerable problem generally in relation to the running of nationalised industries, particularly when we remember that those industries are only a part of the general economy and the great bulk of the economy is in private hands and responds —at any rate up to a point—to the market.
5.0 p.m.
The dilemma which often faces the House in looking at these questions in relation to the nationalised industries is: are the nationalised industries to be publicly-owned but commercial enterprises working in a genuine competitive spirit and within a free or market economy, as it is sometimes referred to today, or to be primarily public services? It seems very difficult for hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to make up their minds. When I speak of them being run primarily as public services, I do not mean to suggest that they should not at the same time be economically and efficiently run—as public services should be—but that nevertheless they are intended primarily to provide a service to the public and to industry rather than to be commercial enterprises in the normal way in which that term is used.
That is a difficult issue and, although we on this side of the Committee think our ideas are much sounder than those of hon. Members opposite, I am not suggesting that necessarily we have thought of the correct solution. It may be that a great deal of experience will have to be gained before any really effective machinery for the control of nationalised industries and some firm attitude towards the type of services they are intended to give can be worked out. I speak with modesty as to the general view of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but on balance, when dealing particularly with public utilities such as the electricity and gas industries, we tend to come down in the end in favour of the second view, what I described as regarding those industries primarily as public services, economically and efficiently run, but nevertheless public services.
I am not so sure that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been able to make up their minds at all. From time to time one notices contradictions in their attitude. On occasion, they want commercial methods above everything else to dominate the running of nationalised industries. On other occasions, they speak of the discipline of the market. Then they come to another favourite argument of theirs, that there should be greater Parliamentary checks and investigations.
I think the truth about it all, which in a sense resolves the apparent con-

tradiction, is that at heart they dislike nationalisation. That is much of the difficulty they have. We on this side of the Committee do not suffer from those inhibitions. We believe in the principle of public enterprise and believing in that principle we believe that public enterprise must necessarily have public accountability. Public accountability is one of the justifications for public enterprise and public ownership. The difficulty is to find the appropriate machinery.
We are not so sure that this rather crude mechanism in the proposals now before the Committee, by which it is necessary to come back to the House in the course of three or three-and-a-half years, would work out instead of leaving the period at seven years, or that it really provides the answer and qualifies for the description of appropriate machinery. In the case of the electricity supply industry, we are studying an industry in which it is quite essential in the very nature of things to look ahead for a great number of years. Power schemes of all kinds, whether of generating stations or transmission lines distribution systems which naturally go with them, must be looked at and planned for seven or even ten years before they are brought to completion.
In this matter of power systems in a modern economy, nothing seems to hold back the process of their development because, after all, they are not really determined on their own account. Only within limits do they make their own progress. The electricity supply industry responds to the general development of the economy as a whole. In fact, in every modern industrial country the development of electric power systems is determined by the prosperity—domestic, commercial and industrial—of the whole nation. As has often been pointed out, electricity is an infallible index to the general standard of life in all industrial countries. Therefore, on the assumption of continuing British prosperity—and we are all anxious to make that assumption —it seems that of necessity we must increase investment in electric power year by year.
Unless we make proper provision for doing that, we run the risk of jeopardising our national prosperity. I think that is common ground on both sides of the Committee. While accepting that whether


we like it or not we must have a tremendous development of electricity supply— which is not something we can make a choice about—the fair issue is, are the capital resources being provided as economically as possible? That is a fairly straightforward issue. Although it is straightforward in the sense that one can put it in that way, when we look at it more closely we find it is a highly involved, technical question and not an easy one for Members of Parliament to answer.
One can only attempt, as I attempted to do on Second Reading, to look at the practical tests and checks which are available to us in relation to the efficiency of British electricity supply. I do not propose to speak longer than is necessary this afternoon. Those practical checks on the efficiency of eleotrical supply are a matter of price and it is acknowledged that prices are very low. The Herbert Committee almost condemned the electricity supply industry for selling its product too cheaply.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster) indicated dissent.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) shakes his head, but he should look at the relevant paragraph in the Report. Not only did the Herbert Committee make the criticism that the electricity supply industry was selling its product too cheaply, but that is a criticism made by the Economist andThe Times and a number of the other more serious and solemn newspapers. If we look at the cost per kilowatt installed in new plant and so on, we find that the costs today are really no higher that they were a few years ago, in spite of the tremendous advance in the price level. One could go on and quote the figure I gave on Second Reading about manpower used per kilowatt. There again, the industry comes through very well.
It is not possible for hon. and right hon. Members to run away from the fact that the nationalised electricity supply industry is a highly efficient and successful industry. Nothing in this world is perfect, but this industry does reasonably well. If hon. Members opposite really think they can add something by Parliamentary checks, good enough, but I doubt if this method is going to help a great

deal. It will simply mean that three or four years from now there will be another general debate on the industry, but there will not be an opportunity for the House to look closely at the financial affairs of the industry. If we are anxious to do this job, in the long run the Select Committee procedure is the more effective method.
While we do not raise any marked objection to the change, I should like to know how the industry is reacting to it. We appreciate that it is in the nature of a political compromise between the front and back benches opposite. We have had these compromises before in electricity and fuel and power affairs, and we tend to take them almost for granted. They go through a kind of settled routine, but I suggest that the House of Commons should not go too far in attempting to investigate in detail the affairs of the electricity industry. Too much meddlesome interference in the affairs of this industry, too much pulling up of the plant to see how it is growing, will not help the industry in the long run in the service of the nation, and the result is likely to be to drive away good men from the leadership of the industry.
As I have said, we do not raise any marked objection to the change. It is in the nature of a political compromise. The Paymaster-General has been sniped at from the back benches opposite. There has been a very loud demonstration by the hon. Member for Kidderminster—

Mr. Nabarro: There is nothing loud about me.

Mr. Palmer: I think that that is very much a matter of opinion. It has not only been loud on this occasion, but we had a similar kind of procedure, a kind of rehearsal, when, in 1957, during the Electricity Bill, we discussed planning powers. There was on that occasion resistance to the Government Front Bench and in the end the Front Bench surrendered to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. An even more striking instance occurred with regard to the right of the industry to manufacture plant. The Paymaster-General came down to the House and said that they could not surrender this power, that the industry must be dependent—

Mr. Maudling: Is the hon. Member arguing that a Government should accept suggested Amendments to a Bill only


when they come from the opposite side of the House?

Mr. Palmer: I do not suggest that at all. I think that it is a matter of principle. What I am suggesting is that Ministers should know their own minds and stand their ground. That is a very fair point to make.
If this had happened on just one occasion it might be understandable, but it has happened so often. It happened when we were discussing planning powers and the right to manufacture, and now we go through the whole shocking procedure once again on the matter of capital allocations. The blunt truth is that we are suffering from a constitutional difficulty. We have a highly intelligent Minister responsible for electrical power affairs in this House, but the true power lies in the other place, and, although the right hon. Gentleman may try to stand his ground, in the long run he tends to be betrayed by his noble Friend, who is prepared to make concessions which, if he were given the power himself, he would never think of making. That is the truth of it.
We on this side are entitled to say that, because in a few months probably the two sides of the House will change position, and we shall do things rather differently and set the example of more responsible and consistent conduct of our affairs.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: It would be as well if I were not drawn into a general discussion by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) on the merits or otherwise of nationalisation. I want to deal for a moment or two with the Amendments.
At the time of the presentation of the Bill and on Second Reading a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were concerned, not only about the size of the bill for this very large capital development scheme, but also about the time factor involved. As we saw it, it meant that we were possibly compromising, not the next Parliament, but the one after that. A matter of seven years will elapse before this matter will be discussed, and during that time a number of circumstances might have arisen which in great measure would have vitiated the premises on which the present scheme was originated.
In those circumstances, we felt that some alteration should be embodied in the Bill, and on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I should like to express our gratitude that the Paymaster-General has seen his way to do so. This would be an appropriate moment to express a word of thanks to the Minister, who has guided us very wisely in this matter. It is a nice balance between Parliamentary control and a reasonable degree of freedom for the industry in carrying out large development plans. An apt solution has been arrived at, and, as I say, on behalf of all hon. Members on this side I should like to express our gratitude for what has been proposed by the Paymaster-General.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General for the generous fashion in which he has responded to a number of suggestions made from this side on Second Reading. I do not think there is anything unusual or unconstitutional on the part of my right hon. Friend in accepting suggestions made by my hon. Friends and myself. We are generally in agreement with one another in principle.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member has sacked two.

Mr. Nabarro: I have not sacked two people. I am expressing my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for responding generously to our proposals.
On Second Reading I suggested that the major increase in the ceiling of capital sums authorised should be cut in half, but I chose my words very carefully and I gave a specific purpose. I did not in any way wish to inhibit the capital development plans of the electricity boards, and I was careful to say in c. 124:
I shall seek later in this Bill to reduce by 50 per cent. the ceiling authorised for the borrowing powers with a view to cutting in half the span of years ahead for which we are seeking to legislate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 124.]
My right hon. Friend, by the formula enshrined in these Amendments, has done precisely that. All that we are doing today, as I understand it, is authorising an additional sum of £400 million to take us to the end of 1961 or the beginning of 1962, when a Statutory Instrument will be brought to the House so that all of us may review past expenditure on capital


account and the prospects for the immediate future and authorise or otherwise the remaining sums within the global amount denoted in this Measure. That is a wise and, in my view, successful compromise.
I propose to reserve until Third Reading a few further comments on the load factor which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will recall was not responded to by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading. The load factor was raised by my hon. Friends and myself and by several hon. Members opposite strictly in the context of economy in capital investment within this hugely expensive industry.
During the Committee stage, I wish to ask my right hon. Friend only one question which continues to rather perplex me. Under the Electricity Act, 1957, area boards are given powers to seek capital in the open market without Treasury guarantee, if they so desire, subject to the consent of the Minister. In the event of area boards doing that and raising, for example, £100 million, does that sum of money fall within the ambit of sums authorised in this Bill or not? That would have a marked bearing upon the adequacy or otherwise of the total sums which we are discussing this afternoon. I see that my right hon. Friend is examining this point closely, and I am grateful to him. I should like to direct his attention to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the penultimate sentence of which is extremely difficult to understand. It reads:
If the Council and the Boards were to use the increase in their borrowing powers authorised by Clause I to borrow in the market"—
I presume that that means the open market without Treasury guarantee—
instead of from the Minister or the Secretary of State under Section 42 of the Act of 1956, the liability of the Consolidated Fund in respect of guarantees for these borrowings would be increased accordingly.
I should have thought that if they went to the open market there would be no charge on the Consolidated Fund. This point is perplexing me, and I should like my right hon. Friend to explain it if he can.

Mr. Maudling: The only occasion on which there should be increased liability

for giving guarantees is when they borrow money from the market on a guarantee.

Mr. Nabarro: If they go to the open market under the 1957 Act. That is my point. There is no Treasury guarantee.

Mr. Maudling: If they go with a Treasury guarantee that will involve some contingent liability on the Exchequer. If they go without a guarantee there can be no additional liability on the Treasury.

Mr. Nabarro: That leads me to my point. Do I conclude from my right hon. Friend's answer that if they go to the market and borrow without Treasury guarantee—which they are permitted to do under the Electricity Act, 1957, should my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power give his consent—any such sum borrowed on the market without Treasury-guarantee would fall without, not within, the ambit of the finances in this Bill? Would my right hon. Friend care to respond to that point?

Mr. Maudling: The first sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum seems to me to be the valid one. It reads:
The aggregates of the outstanding borrowings by the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, whether by way of temporary borrowings, stock issues or advances from the Exchequer.
It does not appear to be confined to stock issues with a guarantee.

Mr. Nabarro: I conclude that if they borrow on the open market without Treasury guarantee such sums of money are outside the ambit—

Hon. Members: Inside.

Mr. Palmer: Would not it save time if the hon. Gentleman were in the Government himself?

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, of course, it would. I quite agree with that. That is a relevant issue. I am not in the Government, but, as my right hon. Friend will recognise, this is a valid question. It has perplexed my hon. Friends and myself.
I conclude that the sums which we are authorising within the purview of the Amendments cover borrowings by the


present system under the appropriate Sections of the Finance Act direct from the Treasury, and whether such moneys are borrowed by the electricity boards on the open market with or without Treasury guarantee all must come within the purview and ambit of this Bill.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for satisfying my curiosity and putting my perplexities at rest. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendments, and I am grateful for the generous spirit of compromise which has actuated my right hon. Friend in these important financial considerations.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Far from it being an act of compromise, it seems to me to be an act of complete surrender—

Mr. Nabarro: Certainly not.

Mr. Hayman: —to the bullying and blackmailing methods of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), both in this Chamber and in Committee, when dealing with his own Ministers. Any of us who recall the days we spent in Committee on the 1957 Bill, now an Act, will remember that from time to time the hon. Member for Kidderminster came with a hammer to hit his right hon. Friends and then disappeared from the Committee until it was time for the next blow.
Today, the Paymaster-General has surrendered too much. A few weeks ago, he came to ask the House to sanction borrowing up to £2,300 million. This afternoon, he brings forward an Amendment to limit the total to £1,800 million. The difference between the previous amount borrowed and the amount asked for a few weeks ago was £900 million. All that the right hon. Gentleman asks for now is £400 million, or less than half of the additional money for which he was asking a few weeks ago.
The Paymaster-General has said that this sum will carry the industry on until about the end of 1961. That is less than three years. Surely a great industry like this ought not to be compelled to come to Parliament within two years for sanction as to whether it should continue its rate of development. It is an extraordinarily limiting time. After the experience of recent years, when the industry has never known from year to year how much it

would be permitted to spend, I should have thought that now at least was the time to give it power to go ahead and to plan for three or four years, without the fear of having to come to Parliament in the middle of the job for sanction to carry on.

Mr. Robens: I found the speech of the Paymaster-General an extraordinary one. He came to tell us that he had considered what had been said by his hon. Friends on Second Reading and had come to the conclusion that they were right and he was wrong.

Mr. Nabarro: No. It is a compromise.

Mr. Robens: I can only repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the Committee today and told us that on second thoughts he considers that all the arguments which he advanced on Second Reading were wrong and that all that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and his supporters said was correct.

Mr. Maudling: I did not say that; the argument for greater accountability came from both sides of the House.

Mr. Robens: On Second Reading, the Paymaster-General applied himself to the argument of accountability. Speaking in his Ministerial capacity, with all the knowledge and expert advice that he was able to obtain, he assured the House that the accountability was adequate. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Amendments are due to consideration of the suggestions made by his hon. Friends. He has come to the conclusion that all the arguments he put forward earlier, which were completely against this kind of Amendment, were wrong and that his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and his supporters were right.
What the Paymaster-General did not tell us was the interesting story of what happened at a private meeting of the Tory Fuel and Power Group upstairs. If the information which leaks out from meetings from time to time is correct, it was there that the right hon. Gentleman's mind was changed. At least, that is the view of some of the correspondents who are able to secure information about these matters, and I have no doubt that that is perfectly true.
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's change of mind is based not upon arguments made in the House about accountability, but is because of the power and influence of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who already, on previous occasions, has compelled the Government to move from office two predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend. By pressure in a private meeting upstairs, the on. Member and his hon. Friends have secured what the Paymaster-General was not prepared to give to the House on Second Reading.
5.30 p.m.
What did the right hon. Gentleman say about accountability and what has made him change his mind about it since Second Reading on 20th January? Speaking of accountability, he said that there was plenty of opportunity for the House to review the work of the nationalised industries—in this case, the electricity industry—because there was, first, the annual review provided for in the Finance Act. His right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) suggested, however, that the Paymaster-General was wrong, that Section 36 of the Finance Act, 1958, operated in one year only and that the budgetary review to which the Paymaster-General had referred did not exist. Whatever be the merits of the argument between his right hon. Friend and himself, one of the methods by which the Paymaster-General said that Parliament could examine what the nationalised industry was doing was the annual review through the Finance Act.
The Paymaster-General then drew attention to the fact that each year a White Paper on capital expenditure in the power industries is issued and gives a second opportunity within twelve months for us to discuss the nationalised industries and for Parliament to exercise some degree of oversight in what they are doing. The third safeguard to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the Select Committee, which is constantly looking over the affairs of nationalised industries, as a result of whose Report we have already had one debate. The fourth method to which he drew our attention was the annual reports of the industries themselves, in this case the electricity industry.
The Paymaster-General, whose guidance we always value, said on Second

Reading—he was well warned by the strange leakage to the Press about where the attack would come from and on what lines and, therefore, his brief had been prepared accordingly—that because of the four headings which I have enumerated, there was no doubt that there was adequate Parliamentary supervision. He dismissed beforehand, therefore, the case which he has made today that still more Parliamentary accountability was required.
Then, the right hon. Gentleman made the case for the seven years. The present Amendments would reduce that period to the point at which the electricity industry had reached the limit of its borrowings, whether in three, four or five years, and then it would require an Order in the House to take its borrowings above the lower limit and to go to the maximum or to such sum as the Minister determines. When we discuss the Order, we may find out from the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to do this in two bites or more.
Having dismissed beforehand the case of the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends that there was insufficient accountability to Parliament, the Paymaster-General proceeded to make a very strong case for the seven years. We on this side supported him, because in an industry like this, which has to invest millions of pounds a seven-year programme is not unreasonable. All these arguments convinced us in the Opposition that we were right to support the Government.
Today, however, the Paymaster-General, for whom we have tremendous respect, tamely caves in to this little group of back-benchers opposite who are able to exercise so much power over so formidable a figure as the right hon. Gentleman that we are bound to wonder exactly who is running the Government, whether it is those inside it or those who are out of it.
We have now reached the stage when the Bill that we discuss on Third Reading will be a brand new one. It is all changed, rather like the Bill concerning baking that we discussed on Friday. On Second Reading, not once, but many times, the Paymaster-General persuaded the House that seven years was the right period. He said:


So we must take action now to increase the total ceiling, and, in the view of the Government, it is right to take a seven-year period, because of the nature of the industry, the long time over which its capital development programme must unfold, and the time it takes from the start of a project for electricity generation to its completion.
For all these reasons, it seems most sensible to take a seven-year period. This seven-year period of authority for borrowing is linked with a seven-year programme for the general expansion of the industry …
He went on to say:
What we are asking the House in this Bill to do is to approve an overall limit of borrowings by the electricity authorities over the next seven years, and in asking the House to do that, we must also ask it to confirm the Governments view that the general programme laid before the Government, the House and the public for the expansion of the industry over this seven-year period is, in broad terms, a reasonably sensible programme. We are not asking for detailed approval, which must be given year by year, but it is important that there should be general approval for the expansion programme of the industry over this seven-year period.
He added:
The proposal is for an investment over this seven-year period of £1,470 million in fixed capital for generating electricity and £660 million for distribution, giving a total of £2,130 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 41–2.]
It is no use the Paymaster-General, occupying a position as an important Minister in the Government, to come to the House and, on the basis of good argument, persuade the House to accept the seven-year period, together with his arguments about public accountability, and then to come back a few weeks later and say that what he said then was all nonsense, that what the Government now want is much greater Parliamentary accountability, that not much notice need be taken of all the business about the seven years and that the industry can be allowed to spend so much money and then the right hon. Gentleman will make an order and let the industry carry on with the remainder.
That is not treating the House too well. If the right hon. Gentleman had any doubts about his seven-year period or about public accountability, he should have been fair to the House and expressed those doubts on Second Reading and not been so adamant about seven years and public accountability. This change of attitude by the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with suggestions that were made in the House on

Second Reading, because the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to these matters when he replied.

Mr. Nabarro: It was not the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, who replied.

Mr. Robens: When the Secretary of State for Scotland replied, he made no reference whatever to these points. As we considered whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading, there was no indication that there would be any change. I repeat that, on a Bill which deals specifically and only with this one matter, the Paymaster-General has given way to this powerful Fuel and Power Group in his own party and has misled the House of Commons in consequence.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, on any future Bill dealing with fuel and power, will be good enough, at least in the interests of the Opposition, who have tried to assist the Government in these matters, to consult the Fuel and Power Group of the Tory Party first and then come to the House and tell us exactly what is in his mind. It is clear that we shall, in future, have to rely far more on the speeches of the hon. Member for Kidderminster than on the speeches of members of the Government, because his views certainly carry more weight than those of Ministers and the people who draft these Bills.
What is to happen now in regard to the seven-year programme? Does it go on, as laid down in this admirable booklet to which the Paymaster-General drew our attention and on which he said the whole case for the Second Reading was made. This booklet, "Power for the Future", contains the seven-year programme. Are we to have another programme given to us, a programme which will, first, take our development up to the lower limit of this borrowing, and then, in a second part, take us to the upper limit? What guarantee have we that, when the lower limit has been reached, the right hon. Gentleman will come to the House with an Order to raise it to the higher limit?
There is nothing compulsory in the Bill, as far as I can see. If we take the right hon. Gentleman's position on Second Reading and then during the Committee stage, it would seem better for us to address our questions to the hon.


Member for Kidderminster. The hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether he will be able to persuade his right hon. Friends at the time to come forward with an Order permitting an increase or not. What reliance can we place on the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench?

Mr. Nabarro: I should be very interested in having a revision of the publication" Power for the Future in the early future. I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to attribute to me any special prescience in a matter of this kind. I will quote a far greater authority, the Economistof 27th December, 1958, which said:
One rather notable omission from the booklet 'Power for the Future' which the Electricity Council has issued to explain how it intends to spend the £2,130 million between this year and 1964–65 is any figure of how much generating capacity it intends to have in commission at the end of its investment spree".
Those were rather derogatory comments.

Mr. Palmer: That is complete nonsense.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) may think that, but the Economisthas among its ranks some distinguished critics of the nationalised industries, and it is not a Tory journal.
To the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), I say at this stage that I would welcome an amendment to the booklet "Power for the Future", based on the Amendments that we are putting through today. I would welcome a restatement of future policy every two years on the part of this immensely expensive industry.

Mr. Robens: This now places us in much greater doubt. At first, I was ready to accept these Amendments and take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. First, he shakes my own confidence in what he now has to say to the House on these matters, and then what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster has just said makes me much more doubtful about even agreeing to these Amendments going through without a Division.
I say at once that the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends in his very powerful Fuel and Power Group have a great deal of knowledge.

I hand it to the hon. Member for Kidderminster that he has read up all his stuff on this matter.

Mr. Nabarro: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robens: If he is as successful in his last plea for a review of "Power for the Future" every two years as he has been in making the Paymaster-General eat his own words, then, it seems to me, these Amendments take on a much more serious slant than they appeared to do when we first discussed them.
I want to put a question to the Paymaster-General, and I should like him, if he will, to reply personally to it. Perhaps he might intervene. I mean no disrespect whatever to the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that, and I do not in any way wish to interfere with the hon. Gentleman making a speech. It is a very important matter, and this is the question I put. Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by this programme or not?

Mr. Maudling: The answer is, "Yes".

Mr. Robens: So we may take it that, if the hon. Member for Kidderminster now marshals his group to try to enforce the policy he has just announced, we can rely, this time, even if we could not previously, upon the right hon. Gentleman sticking to his guns or, at least, sticking to the generating programme. That is some comfort to us, and I hope that now that we have that on record we shall at least have something with which to face this formidable hon. Member for Kidderminster, who is able to exercise such tremendous pressure upon the Government.
What is to happen to the forward planning of the electricity industry? Has it a forward plan on the basis that there will be an Order at some time, when it has used up the lower limit of its borrowings, to enable it to go to the maximum? Or has its business associations with the companies which supply the industry to be on the basis that, "These are the sort of orders we can give, but you must understand that, at a certain date, when we have paid all our bills for capital expenditure, we cannot determine whether we shall be able to take delivery of anything more because that will be determined entirely by the Minister coming forward and agreeing about an Order in Council".

5.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin) indicated dissent.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that this is not so. I am bound to say that once one departs from a seven-year programme which, I should have thought, enabled both the manufacturers and the industry to plan and go ahead with complete safety, knowing that the orders placed could be properly met, and once that programme is reduced, doubt must be created somewhere.
What is the point of the Amendment? What is the point of reducing the amount of borrowing—'this is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—if it is not at a certain point to make it possible to examine once again the programme of the electricity industry? If it is determined by Parliament—the Government, with their automatic majority, will determine it—that it shall not have any more money, what happens to the orders placed by the undertakings with private enterprise?

Mr. Maudling: The same thing as would happen in the last year of a seven-year period would happen in the last year of a four-year period.

Mr. Robens: What is that?

Mr. Maudling: They go on.

Mr. Palmer: There will be a different Government then, anyway.

Mr. Robens: They do go on. Very well.
Therefore, what the Paymaster-General is now saying is that these Amendments are mere whitewash to placate the hon. Member for Kidderminster. They mean absolutely nothing, and, in four years' time, when all this money at the lower limit has been used, the hon. Member for Kidderminster will speak about an Order which the right hon. Gentleman will produce, and it will not make the slightest difference. All this is merely to placate the back benchers. That is exactly what we thought was the truth.

Mr. Nabarro: There is apparently a great conflict of emotion between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer).

The right hon. Gentleman is now clearly assuming that my right hon. Friend will still be in office four years' hence. A jolly good thing, too. The hon. Member for Cleveland, in rather prophetic fashion, was saying a few moments ago that it would only be a matter of months before the two sides changed round. Really, the right hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework before he addresses the Committee.

Mr. Robens: I have done my homework. It is always the custom in the House of Commons to deal with a forward programme and to deal with Ministers as they are at the time. The future can take care of itself; we will deal with the changed circumstances when they arise.
At present, I am dealing with the position as it is now. I am projecting the thing forward and I have merely been trying to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman the true motives of his Amendments. I am perfectly satisfied that we have them now. He has not gone back on his Second Reading speech at all. He still believes in the seven-year programme. He still believes in Parliamentary accountability. This is really a bit of eyewash to placate the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I suppose that we can really take it both ways. [Laughter.] it is all very well for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to laugh. It seems quite clear that we can take it either way, either as evidence of weakness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or as something to placate the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: Or both.

Mr. Robens: That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said in his interventions.
It is not that one violently objects to the Amendments. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about it. in effect, really making no difference at all to the programme, I do not think that it matters much whether there is this Order in Council for the increased borrowings or not. It gives us an extra day for the debate on the electricity undertakings, which in itself is not a bad thing if Parliament has the time.
The right hon. Gentleman was not, I think, very fair to the Committee when


he produced such powerful arguments both on the question of accountability and on the seven-year period, afterwards running away from them as he has. I do not wish to say more at this stage. On the next Amendment, I may have one or two words to say. In advising my hon. Friends to agree to these Amendments, I can only repeat that this is an appalling piece of Parliamentary work on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is something which surprises us on this side very much, because we did feel that at least he, if none of his predecessors, was able to stand up to the powerful hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Sir I. Horobin: The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has been making rather heavy weather of all this. I think that there are, however, one or two points on which a little rational assistance would be of help to the Committee. First, to dispose of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—I am not sure whether I ought to call him my "hon. master"or my "hon. dupe"—

Mr, Robens: Does the hon. Gentleman remember his "hordes and droves?"

Sir I. Horobin: Consent by the appropriate Minister would, in any case, be required, in this case the Minister being my noble Friend. The point is that that consent, whatever the type of borrowing, could be given only within these limits.
As regards the seven years, I would like to make it quite clear—in one sense this is the point of the first Amendment, the one we are, technically, now considering—that the period until 1965 carries out exactly the aim of the brochure and the plan for the industry. The further figure in the second Amendment relating to the earlier period—about which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say—also follows exactly the development put forward in the plan, as generally approved by the Government and the House on Second Reading.
I do not think that we need pursue any of the more general points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer). Whether it be a public service or a commercial activity, some form of

accountability is obviously desirable. In passing, I will say that it is not true that the Secretary of State did not deal with all this when he wound up. The right hon. Member for Blyth made a mistake which he corrected. I was, unfortunately, ill and could not be there, and, in any case, I was not to wind up the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wound up, and my attention has been drawn to his remarks at the very beginning of his speech:
…in the speeches from both sides of the House the main matters of interest have been connected with the fact that no one has yet devised the proper method of keeping control of nationalised industry …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 152.]
The right hon. Member for Blyth, inadvertently and trusting to his memory, made a statement contrary to the facts. It is important to get this right. The whole issue is not a question of wild revolts, pressures and blackmail and all the rest. It is a very close balance of arguments. The right hon. Member for Blyth might recall some of my own guilty past in this matter. I disclose no secrets when I tell him that discussions on accountability went on before the Bill was introduced. They were continued in the House on Second Reading and they went on afterwards, before, during, and after the famous meeting of the Conservative Fuel and Power Committee.
There is a balance of argument on this which all serious students of the nationalised industries recognise, on what is the right way of ensuring that there is sufficient Government and Parliamentary control, without limiting the proper freedom of the industry to carry on its business. After all, we are dealing with £400 million. We tend to get too used to these huge sums, but £400 million is a very great deal of money, and it is right and proper that Parliament should consider, as the Government have considered, whether it has made the correct choice between giving too much freedom and giving too little.
It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Member for Blyth said, reciting some of the words of my right hon. Friend, that there is an argument that debates on a White Paper, on annual reports, and on a Report from a Select Committee, if it returns to this industry, all give opportunities. But they all suffer from considerable defects, and it has been felt that


it would be wise to ensure that a discussion took place without waiting for such a very long period of time.
The right hon. Member for Blyth did not do himself justice on the question of what happens towards the end of any period. The argument was a reductio ad absurdum.We have the annual Army Act, but does the Army stop planning what is to happen after 31st December? We all agree that something like this large sum must be obtained. The function of debate is not necessarily to discuss or to reduce the amount required. It is to give an opportunity to the House, or to the Committee, to consider at reasonable intervals the stewardship of these bodies.

Mr. Robens: Then why was a period of seven years provided for in the Bill in the first place?

Sir I. Horobin: Seven years, or nearly six years as the period is, is the time over which the industry is planning. The right hon. Member will see from the second Amendment that it is quite clear. That Amendment provides for
… such greater sum, not exceeding two thousand three hundred million pounds, as the Minister may by order specify.
What Parliament, in effect, is now saying is, "You need not come forward with another Bill and go through all the proceedings of an Act, but you must come forward with an Order which Parliament can debate."
Nobody pretends that this is the final solution of the problem of the accountability of the nationalised industries. No one believes that this is eternal. It remains true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that nobody has found a solution to this problem yet. On a balance of reasonable argument and discussion, from that and this side of the Committee and within the parties, it has been felt that it w ill not seriously limit the freedom of the industry to conduct its affairs if we ensure that there is a Parliamentary discussion at a shorter interval than was provided for in the original Bill.
Hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Cleveland will look with some disquiet upon what appeared to be his threat to them that if and when the party opposite sits on this side of the Committee —which heaven forbid—those on the Front Bench do not apparently propose to accept any Amendments from their

hon. Friends. If more hon. Members had been present on the opposite benches during the debate we might have had a little private revolt from them.
But this is not a matter to get wildly excited about and talk about plots and pressures. All that has been done is to ensure that Parliament can keep a rather closer control over very large sums of money, and that seems a reasonable thing to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:In page 1, line 12, leave out "two thousand three hundred million pounds "and insert:
eighteen hundred million pounds or such greater sum, not exceeding two thousand three hundred million pounds, as the Minister may by order specify".

In line 22, leave out "three hundred million pounds "and insert:
two hundred and forty million pounds or such greater sum, not exceeding three hundred million pounds, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".

In page 2, line 4, leave out "one hundred and thirty-five million pounds" and to insert:
one hundred and ten million pounds or such greater sum, not exceeding one hundred and thirty-five million pounds, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".—[Mr. Maudling.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end to add:
(2) Any power conferred by this Act to make an order includes power to vary any such order by a subsequent order.
(3) Any power conferred by this Act to make an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before the Commons House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of that House.
One purpose of the Amendment is to provide that there should be an Order, to be confirmed by an affirmative Resolution. The Amendment makes clear that any Order need not take the whole of the remaining £500 million. In other words, if £400 million out of the £900 million has been borrowed, there must be a Statutory Instrument which need not, if the Minister at the time thinks fit, automatically cover the whole of the remaining £500 million. If necessary, it would be possible to obtain more than one Order to cover the remaining period of time.

Mr. Nabarro: Does that mean that at the end of 1961–62 the Minister would bring forward one Statutory Instrument to cover twelve to eighteen months ahead and another one and another? Will he have a number of bites at the cherry, or will he bring forward one Instrument to cover the whole period, until the exhaustion up to the ceiling of the borrowing powers under the Bill?

Mr. Maudling: The point is that the Minister's hands should be left untied either way. I hazard a guess that any Minister would say, if things are going right, "We will increase the borrowing powers up to the full limit of the Bill", but it would be unwise to tie his hands and prevent his proposing a lower figure if he thought that the best course.

Mr. Nabarro: I should like to add my commendation of these two important Amendments to the Committee. I particularly want to draw attention to the flexibility which was revealed by my right hon. Friend's answer to my intervention. I regard it as particularly important that. when we have exceeded the first sum of the increase, namely, £400 million at the end of 1961 or early 1962, the Minister should be in a position to proceed annually with his Statutory Instrument if he so desires, and according to the development position in the industry at that moment, rather than that he should bring in one Statutory Instrument to cover the whole period between the end of 1961, or the beginning of 1962, and the suggested exhaustion period of 1965.
The reason for that is the purely practical one that nuclear-power generating installations are immensely more expensive in terms of capital investment than conventional stations. Only yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that 12 to 14 nuclear stations are planned between this date and 1965. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) is listening, because the National Union of Mineworkers, for example, has said that two of these nuclear power stations should be abandoned in favour of conventional or coal-fired stations.
I called it the attitude of King Canute yesterday at Question Time, but whoever is Minister of Power at the end of 1961 must be in a position to judge where the emphasis is to be put as between conventional stations and nuclear stations.

On that will depend the sum of money required for capital investment purposes year by year for the remaining period, from the end of 1962 to the proposed exhaustion date in 1965. It is for that reason that the flexibility enshrined in my right hon. Friend's answer to my intervention is the crux of the matter associated with these two important Amendments, which I so warmly support.

Mr. Hayman: It ill becomes the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to be talking of King Canute. His whole record in the House of Commons is one of trying to stop the oncoming tide of progress. The very speech which the hon. Member has just made was one to welcome the fact that every year he will be empowered to make another attempt. I was glad to hear the Paymaster-General say that he was prepared to think of the end of this stage in 1961 and of going on with the further £500 million and doing the whole job.

Mr. Robens: This is a sorry day for the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary. Their rout is complete. The victory goes to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and he has won a victory greater than he had thought. He did not appreciate, until the Paymaster-General revealed it in his speech, that it may be that when we come to the second part of the cherry it will be taken in little bites and perhaps annually. This is the point to which I indicated previously I wanted to return.
Is it really in the Paymaster-General's mind, or is he so frightened by the hon. Member for Kidderminster that he is coming here to plead with his hon. Friend and say, "We shall do this only year by year after we have had the first bite". Is the right hon. Gentleman so very much afraid? Why has he become so mouselike? Why does he begin by increasing the borrowing powers, in the Amendment which we have just carried, to a substantial amount and then suddenly, alarmed at his boldness, decide to tell the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends, "Do not worry about the Amendment. I might come here year after year for just a little bite. This is all for the benefit of Parliamentary accountability"?
This makes absolute nonsense of Parliamentary accountability. There are better ways of increasing the number of


times on which Parliament could discuss the operations of the electricity authorities. If the Government of the day were prepared to do it, and provided the time, we could have an annual debate on the Annual Report. Other ways could be found of having debate.
It is running away far too quickly to suggest to the electricity authorities—in connection with their borrowings for the tremendous amount of work they have to do, which the Paymaster-General has recounted—that when they have used up the lower bracket of the borrowings the Paymaster-General is likely to come to the House and let the rest of the borrowings out bit by bit year by year. And the right hon. Gentleman says that the suppliers to the industry will not be worried! They are bound to be worried. The Paymaster-General has run away from his Second Reading speech already. It only requires the hon. Member for Kidderminster, in debate on one of these Orders, to frighten him again and he may run away again. He could even conceivably produce no Orders in Council for any money at all, and what will the big companies who are to supply the power stations of Britain do then?
This is what we are driven to under this Government. We have got mice on the Treasury Bench, instead of men who can stand up to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I would myself regard it as absolute nonsense if this Amendment, which we are to accept, because the automatic majority of the Government would compel us to accept it anyway, when it becomes enshrined in the Bill, means that the Paymaster-General has in mind coming to the House year by year for sanction to dole out these moneys. I would regard that as very bad indeed, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who really does stand up to people, will tell us what it means.
I cannot help but think of the Parliamentary Secretary making a speech in which he referred to the customers of electricity undertakings as "hordes and droves". What businessman could possibly describe his customers in that way? [Interruption.] I was saying that I admire the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary stands up to people, and my appeal is made to him, rather than to the

right hon. Gentleman, in whom I have lost confidence.
Here is the Parliamentary Secretary, who went to the South-West of England, where people wanted to take advantage of hire-purchase arrangements, and who described the valued customers of the electricity undertakings as "hordes and droves". As I say, what businessman would describe his customers in those terms? The Parliamentary Secretary can, because he himself can stand up to the people who want hire purchase.
Therefore, I want him to have the same courage to stand up to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He should not be frightened by these upstairs meetings or these private arrangements in upstairs rooms. They have frightened the Paymaster-General, and they have frightened his noble Friend, but I am sure that they will not frighten the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that he will get up and denounce the Paymaster-General and say that, as far as he is concerned, if he has any responsibility for them, when he has to deal with these Amendments, he will provide the electricity undertakings with the whole of the remaining borrowings, and not put up with this nonsense which the Paymaster-General, in his present delicate state of health, feels unable to resist.

Sir Peter Roberts: I think the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) is making a mountain out of a molehill, if my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) can be called a molehill. I did not realise that this timidity which he is suggesting had anything to do with the Bill or with the Amendments which we are discussing. It is merely a question that we feel that these matters should be reviewed from time to time.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is right in doing what he has done, and I would only add that I am sure he will bear in mind that in planning a great industry of this kind, it is essential that those planning the industry and those serving in it should be able to think in terms of years ahead. We do not want to see periods of one, two or three years which may inhibit the expansion of this great industry. I am quite certain that, in bringing out the


point about flexibility, he had in mind the overall picture, and not this cherry-biting to which the right hon Gentleman referred. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend has this point in mind, and that we can be satisfied that the planning of this industry will be able to go ahead in the great measure which we require.

Mr. Robens: Are we not to have some reply to what has been put from this side of the Committee, and also to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts)? Is not the Parliamentary Secretary going to get up and say what is the real intention behind this? I do not expect the Paymaster-General to do so, because obviously he has a very heavy cold, and that, in my view, accounts for his humble submission to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary can stand up to the hon. Member.

Mr. Maudling: If I had spoken again, I might have been guilty of tedious repetition, because I have already given the right hon. Gentleman the answer to the question which he asked me. We have not in mind a system of annual Orders after the first borrowing, and I would agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I think it most probable that the remainder of the balance could be given. We want to get enough flexibility, and not tie the Minister's hands here and now, so that, when he brings forward the Statutory Instrument, it must contain the whole balance. I very much share some of the opinions which the right hon. Gentleman expressed, though I disagree with others.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Mr. Maudling.]

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I was not quite sure— and that is why I was a little tardy in rising—whether my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General proposed to speak in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but there are important matters associated with this massive finance which I think must be alluded to before we part with the Bill.
On Second Reading, many references were made to the wastage of capital inherent in a low load factor. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) alluded to this matter, and not only in the context of the Scottish Boards. He referred to it in a much more general sense, and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend is here listening to his words of wisdom on that occasion. He used these words:
In Scotland the South of Scotland Board and the Hydro-Electric Board are diligent in seeking off-peak loads and have had some successes but only in small schemes. I suggest there are further substantial areas where examination would show how the load factor could be substantially improved."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 20th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 140–1.]
During my Second Reading speech, I quoted from Mr. Kelf-Cohen's recent book on nationalisation and endorsed his reference, which is exactly in consonance with what I have said on many previous occasions in fuel and power debates, to the effect that very large savings in capital investment, which is what we are talking about in this Bill, could be secured if the load factor of electricity generating stations were improved.
I called on Her Majesty's Ministers attending that debate to give us some idea of what they had in mind in the expenditure of the sums which we are authorising in this Bill and in regard to economies in capital investment by using more adequately and efficiently existing power stations and securing from them a higher load factor. With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, that point was not replied to by the Secretary of State for Scotland. All that the Secretary of State for Scotland did, in an utterly parochial sense, was to deal with his own Scottish boards


—the North of Scotland Board and the South of Scotland Board—but, with great respect to the Scots, they are relatively small compared with the English boards. The entire operation in Scotland does not represent as many electricity consumers, even if they were 100 per cent. supplied with electricity, as does the Midlands Electricity Board by itself in England.
This is an important matter within the context of how the money which we are authorising in this Bill is spent, and that is a Third Reading point. The sum of money we are authorising is within the Bill, and what I want to know from my right hon. Friend, who I hope will reply to this debate, is what he thinks about improving the efficiency with which electricity generating stations are being operated, with a view to raising their load factors.
I want to make some specific suggestions to him. He has powers of direction. I think that a direction should be issued by the Minister of Power to all the electricity boards to concentrate upon raising their load factors, with a view to improving efficiency and to economising in new capital investment year by year within the ambit of these huge sums which we are authorising by the Third Reading of this Bill. The more efficiently that capital investment is made, the longer it will last and the less there will be carried upon the national economy. Not only should he give a new direction to the electricity boards to concentrate upon improvement of the load factor—and not only to the Scottish boards, because, as I have said, they are relatively small, although I am not being discouraging, because the population of Scotland is 5 million, as compared with 40 million in England—not only would I want them to concentrate on raising their load factor, but I would require, if I were the Minister—

Mr. Palmer: Ah.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman said "Ah". I am not sure whether a proper description of that exclamation is a bovine noise or not, but it is a singularly unintelligent one. I repeat that, were I the Minister, not only would I give a direction in that sense, but I would also require that these boards reported annually to me on the success or otherwise which had attended their efforts

in securing an improvement in the load factor, and therefore, of course, an increase in the efficiency with which the money is invested.
My final point is this. In 1954, we spent a great deal of time in this House separating the Scottish electricity boards from the English boards. There was a good deal of difference of opinion on whether or not that was a wise move. In this Bill we are putting the Scottish boards back into the same Measure as the English boards. It seems to me to be a retrograde process, and as the Bill, as amended, provides for certain statutory instruments after 1961, I am glad to see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), is in his place listening to these words.
May I ask him whether he would use his influence, when these Statutory Instruments are presented, to make quite sure that we have one Statutory Instrument for the Electricity Council, and that we have two further Statutory Instruments—one for the South of Scotland Board and one for the North of Scotland Board. I may find myself in the position of supporting the Statutory Instrument for the English boards, I may desire to support the Statutory Instrument for the South of Scotland Board, but it is just conceivable that I might not approve of the scale of expenditure envisaged by the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board, and I want to be in a position to be able to vote against the expenditure of the North of Scotland Board, if I deem fit, without having to vote against the expenditure of all the other electricity boards.
I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to give me an assurance that, whenever the Statutory Instruments are introduced under the Amendments which we have carried in Committee, there will be separate Instruments for the Scottish boards so that if we desire to accord to them treatment different from that accorded to the English boards, we may do so.
I hope the Measure will get an unopposed Third Reading. The sums of money we envisage are justified. We are voting for 10 per cent. increases in electric power every year for seven years ahead. That is what we are underpinning financially, and that has the effect over a single


decade of doubling the electrical generating capacity of the nation. It is a measure of the industrial expansion which has been maintained continuously now since the end of the war, and we should not cavil in any way at the huge sums of money that are envisaged in the Bill, provided that there is the proper Parliamentary accountability, which my hon. Friends and myself have sought—not in a cabal upstairs in the Parliamentary Power Committee of the Tory Party, but perfectly publicly on the Floor of the House —to provide, with a measure of success, within this Bill.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Hayman: I rise to support the Third Reading of the Bill and to welcome the assurance of the Paymaster-General that at the end of three years, if he is still there, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to come to the House for sanction to proceed with all the rest of the borrowing powers under this Bill.
On the question of efficiency within this industry, we should also test the efficiency of some of the private companies which manufacture, say, cookers. My wife and I have just had the unfortunate experience of paying the biggest sum of money we have ever paid for a cooker—and we have been using electric cookers for twenty-five years. This one has now started to hum, and we are told that it hums because the elements are made with a cheaper material. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would have a lot to say if that oven had been manufactured by the nationalised industry—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going far from the Third Reading of the Bill. The cooker he mentions was not manufactured by the nationalised industry, and, therefore, it is clearly not within the Bill.

Mr. Hayman: I am sorry, Sir, but one feels a little strongly on this matter. I agree entirely with most of what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) about the necessity for providing enough capital for this great industry to plan ahead, and not only to plan ahead, but to work with the assurance that the

plans it will be preparing in these three years are likely to be carried out in the following four years.

6.28 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I should like to say a word or two as the ex-Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Unfortunately, I was in bed when the Second Reading of this Bill came on. I had looked at it with a great deal of anxiety because, as the familiar faces now in this Chamber who were with me on the Committee will know, I was particularly interested in trying to increase the control of this House over the expenditure of the nationalised industries, and we spent many days on that point.
I congratulate the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, and all those who have contributed to this Bill. In its present form it adds one more opportunity for the House of Commons to increase its control over the expenditure of this industry. As I read the report of the debate on the Second Reading, and as I have listened to all this debate, we have concentrated on this one nationalised industry and on the amount which it is to have over the next seven years and, to some extent, how that is to be spent.
This, however, is only one of a number of nationalised industries, and it is essential for the House to remember that every time we pass a Measure of this kind we are dealing with only one out of a number, and that other industries will be coming forward for equally large, if not greater, amounts of money. It is true that after we have passed the Bill none of this money can be borrowed without the consent of the Minister. It is also true that the Minister of each Department ought to know something about what the other Departments concerned with nationalised industries are doing in the way of finance; but that is not the same thing as this House knowing what is going on month after month, year after year, and the problem still remains to be solved as to what machinery there is by which this House can be kept informed of the total sums of money raised from month to month and year to year by all the nationalised industries.
Let us take the large sums of money we are authorising here under a seven-year scheme. In our investigations of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Boards we found that not one estimate worked out in practice. Always by the time the work came to be paid for, a much larger sum of money had to be found than had originally been thought necessary. That happens everywhere. Therefore, when we vote a sum of money under a seven-year scheme, we must realise that long before the seven years are up it is more than likely that the money will have been spent and that still more money will be required.
It is that kind of combined expenditure by all the nationalised industries over which this House has lost control. This is a Measure which will bring the position before this House half-way through the scheme, when the Minister will have to disclose what has been spent, and how far the scheme has progressed. I hope that, simultaneously, the House will know what has happened in the spending of money by the other nationalised industries. It is for that reason that I think this Bill, as amended, is an important one and I congratulate everybody concerned on its amended form.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: I thought the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) gave the impression that the Scottish Estimates had been badly miscalculated. I am sure he did not intend to give that impression, but listening to him one might think that was so.

Sir P. Spens: No, it was due purely to rising costs between the time of the Estimates and the completion of the work.

Mr. George: I wanted to make it clear that the Select Committee was convinced that this was unavoidable and that the board had done its work well. Since prices have steadied, we shall not expect the same worry in the years that lie ahead.
Nationalisation has brought many fears to the people of this country, and none greater than the fact that huge sums of money are voted by this House with very little examination and debate. It is a further cause for alarm to look round the House of Commons today and to realise

that those vast sums of money are voted in this Bill with such a meagre attendance. It is right that we should examine the expenditure as often as we can, and the nation has a right to expect that far more interest is shown in these vital matters than has been shown today.
These vast sums are based on plans which come before this House, and there is much cause for alarm about how those plans are made because, once made, they are never again really checked. There is no method of checking plans from the beginning until they are put into execution. Again, the plans are made in an undesirable atmosphere, since the men making them know that they do not have to find the capital and that the capital will flow in. Therefore, there is no inducement to work for economy and since they do not have to make a profit, again there is no inducement to economy. Somehow or other we must make sure that the nation is getting value for its money, and so there is some reason for asking for accountability. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said he was ready for an annual debate, and I think we should have that when we are talking of vast sums of money such as we are passing this evening. The atmosphere generated by the ready availability of capital should be followed by checking all along the line.
I have often felt that after nationalising this vast industry and the coal mining industry there should be advisers to check the development plans. Be that as it may, we must use every possible opportunity to check the vast sums of money that are being spent in order to ensure that the money is being looked after and that the country is getting value for the sums spent. In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General on this Bill.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: We are glad to support the Third Reading of this Bill, and in a moment I shall give the two principal reasons for doing so. In his speech the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), said it was important to have greater Parliamentary accountability of nationalised industries because otherwise there was only a limited check. He also said that the men who run these industries do not have to find the money and therefore they can plan ahead without


too much let or hindrance. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is normally unfair, but he was not fair in this instance. From my own knowledge, those responsible for running the great electricity supply industry of this country are always anxious at every stage to check their costs against comparable costs in other countries and to check their efficiency against the best efficient practice in the rest of the world. It is unfair to say about those responsible for running the nationalised electricity supply industry today that if it were not for some extra checks placed by this House, there would not be normal checks of efficiency and of economic expenditure in the daily working of the industry.

Mr. George: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not say they were wasteful in their planning. I talked about the atmosphere in which they planned, of money flowing in to meet whatever plan they devise.

Mr. Palmer: I accept that correction, but the fact is that, by every kind of practical objective test, the British electricity supply industry is run very economically. No one can doubt that on the facts.
I was glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) intervened for a moment, because I had the honour, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, of serving under him when he was Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying, as regards a Parliamentary check on nationalised industries, that if the two sides of the House accept the principle of nationalisation, it is a matter of general concern to us all here, and the more we can work together to devise an effective way of providing this, the better. Certainly those of us who served on the Select Committee have tried, if only humbly, to make a start in that direction.
We are glad to support the Third Reading of this Bill for two reasons. First, because we believe in the expansion of the British economy and we know, as practical people, that in this modern age this expansion can only be based on electric power.
Looking ahead, it is sometimes overlooked that the development of nuclear energy is entirely dependent on electric power, because it is not possible to use nuclear energy unless it is used viaelectric power. The day will ultimately come when the whole of our electricity supply, as the secondary source of energy, will come less from coal and oil and more from nuclear fission, or even fusion.
There are very good practical industrial reasons why we should give the Bill a Third Reading, since upon it the continued expansion of the British economy will largely depend. We are glad to support the Third Reading from this side of the House because we are proud that these achievements are the achievements of a publicly-owned industry, and as the party responsible for putting through the 1947 legislation, we feel that by that legislation we did a very good job for the country—and we hope that we are fairly modest about that. When with the passing of the years we see that things are working out in a highly successful fashion, we take that as a tribute not only to those in the industry itself, but also to the great principle of public ownership and public enterprise.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not in his place—

Mr. Nabarro: I am here

Mr. Palmer: I think that I am accurate in saying that he is not in his normal place. The hon. Member again raised the question of the load factor and he quoted the book by Mr. Kelf-Cohen. With all respect, I would not regard Mr. Kelf-Cohen as an entirely impartial authority, and I need not put it higher than that. Mr. Kelf-Cohen has written a book arguing that the load factor of the British electricity supply industry is not as high as it might be.
That is common ground, and no one thinks that it could not be higher than it is at the moment, but the correct and adjusted figure is'about 48 per cent. That might easily be improved by another 10 per cent., but it is no good the hon. Member becoming so dictatorial as to suggest that the Minister should give a direction to the industry to improve the load factor. The fact is that the load factor of a power supply system—and


I have made this point before—is not entirely within the control of the industry itself. It depends on the load factors of the various industries which take the power. For instance, the load factor of general British industry is probably not much more than 20 per cent., and for commerce it is probably not much over 10 per cent.
I am not saying that a great deal could not be done. Much could be done, particularly by improved tariffs. However, one of the problems about tariffs is that, since electricity supply is cheap and the cost of laying on a supply is relatively cheap, the cost constitutes a small factor in total industrial costs. Therefore, even with the best possible tariff it is not always possible to help as one might suppose from theory.
Instead of directions being given to the industry, the way forward might be to try a rather more peaceful method, as I suggested on Second Reading. It is that, in consultation with the manufacturers of electrical apparatus, the boards themselves might, over the next few years, try the experiment of a combined operation to have not only greater use of electric current. but to have the current used by appliances giving a greater all-round diversity. In this matter I am on the side of voluntary effort and not on the side of direction.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that the hon. Member will permit me to correct him in one material respect. I did not say, in the plain unvarnished terms which the hon. Member has now suggested, that there should be a direction to the boards to improve their load factors. I said that there should be a direction to the boards to concentrate upon load factor improvement as a fundamental consideration in economy in capital investment. That is a rather different matter.

Mr. Palmer: I am always anxious to be at any rate polite to the hon. Member and I accept his correction, although all that it means is that the attention of the boards should be drawn to the load factor. I should have thought that they already knew all about it.
In the course of our discussions today, we have had a number of exchanges about the Bill itself, on the fact that the Bill on Third Reading is very different from its appearance on Second Reading.

The right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General seemed anxious to play down the changes, as did the Parliamentary Secretary. However, it was reasonable and understandable that we should make some criticisms of the way in which the changes have been made. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said:
… in the view of the Government, it is right to take a seven-year period
which is quite definite, while he later said:
For all these reasons, it seems most sensible to take a seven-year period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 41.]
which was fairly definite. A change having been made, it is not unreasonable for us to try to find out why.
The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to suggest, when I talked about this not being the way in which government should be carried on, that I was suggesting that if we had had the power we would have done things differently and would have exercised dictatorial methods. I am a very mild person by temperament and that idea would not occur to me, even if I were in a position to carry out such a plan. I assure the hon. Member that that was not in my mind at all.
In a democratic party, there must be consultations and talks and from time to time there will be compromises. Certain compromises of that kind are not unknown in my party. It is the process of democratic government. However, on this occasion, remembering that this has been done previously, it would have been easier for all concerned if the changes had been made at an earlier stage. There should be some special office for the hon. Member for Kidderminster so that he could automatically be consulted before Bills were printed. It would save time. Perhaps the ideal solution would be for him to come into the Government and take over the job.

Mr. Nabarro: Quite rightly.

Mr. Palmer: We should have heard nothing of these changes but for a meeting upstairs when the noble Lord from another place was prepared to make concessions which, if left to himself, the Paymaster-General might not have been inclined to make. I cannot read his mind, but that is my guess.
In view of the assurances that we have been given today, I do not believe that


the changes are likely to hold up the industry's development. Its credit is extremely good and if it goes ahead and seeks plant and equipment, those making that plant and equipment will know that their money will come along sooner or later, so that in practice the changes will probably not make much difference. Nevertheless, I feel that the industry deserves better treatment and that it would have been all to the good if the Government had decided these things in the first place instead of waiting for a meeting upstairs.
The industry has grown up over the last half a century and has always been reasonably efficient and go-ahead. It is our view that nationalisation has given the industry tremendous opportunities and it has shown itself capable of taking advantage of those opportunities. For those reasons, we support the Third Reading.

6.49 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: It will be for the general convenience of hon. Members if we get the Third Reading before seven o'clock, and I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not think me discourteous if I speak briefly.
I want first to deal with a request from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is somewhat peregrinatory. One never knows where to find him. He asked whether there would be separate Instruments for Scotland and England. As the Ministers are different, there must be separate Instruments for the Scottish and English borrowings, but it will be possible for both Scottish Boards to come under the same Instrument.
With regard to some of his remarks about load factor, which were also taken up by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), all I need say is that this is a matter very much in the mind of the Electricity Council. It is not at all an easy matter, because the Council is not a free agent. That is not to say that it cannot do anything. It is interesting to point out to the House that the existence of the grid makes an enormous difference in this matter. I am advised that the 50 best stations in the country, although they have only just over 40 per cent. of the total capacity, produce 60 per cent. of the output. I could enlarge upon that. It is of great importance that the bad

stations should only be used as little as possible, at peak loads. A substantial number of them which are used only at peak loads, are already completely written off as to capital expenditure as they are so old.
A great deal is being done with the bulk tariff as a direct incentive to the boards to improve their load factor, and a number of special tariffs and special arrangements are made with big consumers to encourage them to do the same. The amount of demand, for instance, which is kept off the peak load at present is well over 1 million kilowatts and rising fairly rapidly. It would not be at all fair to suggest that nothing is being done.
Reference was made by one hon. Member to nuclear power. One of the biggest elements in this is pump storage. The only pity is that we are not able to do more of it. It is an essential matter in the case of nuclear stations, which must operate at the highest possible load factor, that things should be so arranged that they can be used at a steady rate all the year round. I have no time to develop this matter of load factor other than to say that there is no need for directives, and no one should know this better than the Electricity Council and the boards. The Ministry is always in touch with them. The whole matter of research into consumer demand is being considered at the moment. It is quite a difficult matter, and much more difficult than it looks, to disentangle what is the real load factor in relation to particular demands. Work is being done along those lines. There have been cases in which the industry has gone to the extent of double wiring certain installations all through, so it should be possible for it to carry out practical research in that field to see exactly what is the problem. Improvements have taken place and further improvements will take place.
Finally, I should like to refer to the interventions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who speaks with such authority as pater familiasto many of us who served under him on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I am sure that he will agree with me, when all the interchanges are over on this Bill, that the House and the country feel very friendly towards this industry. There is


no question that it will be scamped of money it really wants. It wants an enormous sum of money, very rightly and properly, and certainly sensible minds at the head of the industry appreciate the fact that Parliament, as the custodian of public interest must keep a reasonable but friendly control over what is happening. That is all that is asked.
If we pass this Bill, as I am sure that we now shall, the industry can go ahead and plan very rapidly for its development. It will, in fact, get the money, but it will have to come to Parliament to justfy it as I am sure it will be able to, but if it cannot then, Parliament will have a duty to take very necessary steps. That is, however, a remote eventuality which I do not think anyone on either side of the House expects will occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: The Sitting is suspended for five minutes.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: As some Members have asked me what will be in order in the debate, it may be for the convenience of the House if I define the scope of the debate very shortly. The Bill would support a general discussion on the administration of British Railways, and the Commission's harbours, docks, waterways and shipping, but nothing about fares and charges, because those are otherwise regulated. There are also some minor provisions regarding London Transport, but they would not support a debate on London Transport. Clauses 38 and 65 can be referred to if any hon. Member wishes to refer to them. There is also Clause 60, which refers to the charges levied on the Fishguard and Rosslare service, and any hon. Member would be in order in speaking upon that subject if he so desired.
I propose to call the reasoned Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I shall put it in the form of an Amendment to the

Question,"That the Bill be now read a Second time, "namely, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."That would enable the House to discuss not only the Amendment before us but anything else in the Bill which is in order along the lines I have suggested. If we can reach the Instructions by Nine o'clock, but not after Nine o'clock, i propose to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo),
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part V.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, to leave out from "That"to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while increasing the powers of the British Transport Commission, contains no provision for the equitable use of station forecourts by hackney carriages plying for hire.
I have no complaint with the merits of the Bill, which, as I understand it, is concerned with the modernisation of the railways, but I have a complaint about the way in which the British Transport Commission conducts its business, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members share my views. We are faced with a dilemma. Although the House, through the Minister, controls questions of policy, it has no control over administration. In my judgment, one of the great weaknesses in the schemes of nationalisation, which have my wholehearted support, is that an aggrieved citizen has no right or possibility of redress without recourse to the somewhat cumbersome, and, I regret to say, expensive procedure of getting an hon. Member to block a Bill of this kind in order to draw the attention of the House to his grievance.
I hold the view that the most important function of the House of Commons is not to legislate but to redress grievances. At various stages in its history the House has fought and won the battle for control over policy, and it has control over financial matters, but it has let out of its control any possibility of overseeing administration. It is therefore with no apology that I draw the attention of the House to the grievances, which have persisted for many years, of those who earn their livelihood in the taxi-cab business.
My dilemma is not peculiar to me; the Minister surfers from it as well. From time to time Questions on the subject have been put upon the Order Paper and many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have sought to draw the attention of the House to these grievances, because many constituencies are affected. I have never done that. Although I became interested in this matter eight or nine years ago, I realised that it was not within the control of the Minister to say anything on behalf of the Commission.
In 1949, and again in 1950, I corresponded with the then Chairman of the Commission in regard to a matter which came to my notice through my concern for ex-Service men. The then hon. Member for Hull, North-West (Mr. Mackay), asked me to see some ex-Service men engaged in the taxi-cab business who felt that they had a grievance arising from the manner in which taxis plying for hire in the station forecourt at Hull were controlled. I thought that the hon. Member was right, and that the taxi-drivers were right, and from time to time they have written to me, confirming my view that there is no place in the British Isles where ex-Service men—sometimes disabled ex-Service men—who have sunk their gratuities in the taxi-cab business receive a less square deal than they do in Hull.
With the nationalisation of the railways we thought that the Commission would be more responsive to the rights of the individual than the railway companies had been. In Hull, the system of control had been going on for many years, right back to the days of the London and North-Eastern Railway, even before the last war. I believe that control systems have operated for many years in other places. There are many different systems, apart from those operating in London and Manchester, which are special cases, where there is a free-for-all, so that any taxi-driver can take a fare into a station forecourt and pick up another fare, and where queues are controlled. In those cases everything is controlled by the police and the railway authorities, and the system works quite smoothly for the benefit both of the public and the taxi-driver.
But outside London and Manchester the situation is chaotic. There is an

infinite variety of systems, and one does not complain about that because the kind of organisation that will work in Nottingham, Leeds or Sheffield, which are great centres of population, will be quite different from the kind that will work in some remote hamlet, where there is only one train a day and the demand for taxi-cabs is very small.
The Report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee on the Tenancy Taxi-cab System, to which I shall refer extensively, uses the word "agitation" in connection with the representations made by taxi-drivers who think that they have a grievance against the Commission and the way it controls them. Faced with an increasing number of Questions and letters on the matter, the Minister referred it to the Consultative Committee. This body is responsible to the Minister and is concerned not with taxi-drivers but with the travelling public, and only the travelling public. The Committee is a very able one, and it presented a very able Report. In its conclusions, it stated that the complaint that the present system does not provide an adequate service had not been made out, and the complaint that the Commission was unfair to taxi-drivers who were not licensed to ply in station yards could not be considered in regard to the terms of its remit.
Although the Minister had remitted to the Committee for consideration the complaints of the taxi-drivers, the Committee had to say, in reply, "We are not competent to express a view upon the allegations of the taxi-owners and drivers that they are not getting a square deal." That was the Minister's dilemma, the same as it is mine. The only thing the Minister could do was to get the matter investigated to the best of his ability. The only course open to him, as he is concerned with general policy and not with administration, was to send it to this Committee.
Of its terms of reference the Committee says:
We were requested to report upon the policy of the Commission for dealing with this matter"—
that is what is called the tenancy cab system in use on British Railways—
and in particular whether we considered that this policy was likely to secure the best service to the travelling public.
The Committee's finding was that it could not be bettered for the travelling


public and the taxi-owners concerned had very little to say. It made something of a point about the absence of complaints, and some of its findings were based upon the fact that the travelling public did not complain about the existing system. The Committee was perfectly clear about it and went on to say:
we cannot be sure that the average traveller would think it worth while to lodge a complaint or would know where to address it.
That is perfectly true. Many people who cannot get a taxi or who are annoyed about the taxi service may feel angry at the time, but when they get home and have a cup of tea they forget all about it.
Later in its Report the Committee says that it asked an association concerned with taxi interests whether it had complaints. This was in Yorkshire. The taxi association did what the steel owners have done. It went round to interview people to find out what they had to say. Then complaints were lodged with the Committee. Forthwith the Committee said that it could not take notice of those complaints because they had been canvassed. It is very difficult to know how in any circumstances the Committee could base its conclusions on the lack of complaints from the general public or, when those complaints turned up, whether they were valid.
It would be irresponsible of me if I dwelt too long on this subject. I ought to be constructive. The policy which ought to be adopted is one which is similar to that which operates in London under the provisions of the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907. Section 2 (1), which puts the matter very well, says:
In the admission of cabs to a railway station, or in the treatment of cabs while in a railway station, the company having the control of the station shall not show any preference to any cab, or give any cab a privilege, which is not given to other cabs; and where any charge is made in respect of the admission of any cab to a railway station for the purpose of plying for hire therein, the charge made shall not exceed such sum as may be allowed by the Secretary of State.
That is absolutely right and just. It is just the kind of principle that a newly nationalised industry should adopt. It should recognise that this is an occupation which has among its prime objects the desire to flourish and give good service to the public. The scheme would also enable those men who are engaged in that occupation to carry out their task com-

petently and to earn a reasonable livelihood.
It is clear from the evidence that was given to the Committee that the Transport and General Workers' Union, who are greatly concerned with this, took the very constructive attitude of saying that there ought to be this principle, but it ought to be controlled through reasonably strong and efficient cab owners' associations who would govern their own affairs and who would be strong enough, wise enough and public spirited enough to see that they were operating a public service and that they should do their best to operate it round the clock so that the traveller who arrived late at night would get as reasonable a chance of obtaining a taxi as if he arrived at more popular times of the day.
The British Transport Commission makes rather too much of this in reply to the questions and queries, as if the existing very unfair and chaotic system is the only means by which it can ensure a service to the public.
My constituency, as hon. Members know, is Dudley. We have not a very busy station in the borough. The nearest main line station is Dudley Port, which is the most windy, uncomfortable and decrepit station to be found anywhere in the British Isles. I defy contradiction on that point. It is a filthy place. Some time ago there was a fire there. Unfortunately, the fire was put out. In all the years I have been going there, long before I became a Member of the House, I do not remember seeing a taxi service. One of the recommendations of the Consultative Committee is that at stations like that, where the service is very limited, a notice should be displayed indicating the telephone numbers of taxi-cabs that could be called. That recommendation remains in abeyance at Dudley to this day. What is true of Dudley Port is true of very many stations, although I do not believe that there can be any other station in the British Isles which is so badly served as Dudley.
I am prepared to accept that the British Transport Commission, in its approach to this problem, is concerned, and must be concerned, with the public interest. These schemes were worked out in days when motor cars were few and far between. It is very interesting to see that


these tenancy agreements were born in the days of horses and carriages. The railway companies were concerned to see that the horse and the carriage were spick and span and possessed a reasonable amount of tidiness. These schemes have continued from that time onwards. I readily accept that this scheme was operating when the British Transport Commission took over. When the British Transport Commission is asked to look at the problems today—and it is continually asked by Members in all parts of the House—although it may kid itself that it is concerned with the public interest, as with all these great masses of economic pulp when they are not subject to the accountability of public opinion, it is really concerned with its administrative convenience.
The present schemes cannot be justified on the basis of fairness. There is something to say for them, I readily concede, on public need. The British Transport Commission should be concerned with being fair to all sections—the travelling public and those who serve it. It should also look for a square deal in terms of justice to the taxi-owners. I may mention the word "wisdom", because if they are not fair in the long run the public service is bound to suffer because the taxis which will come along will not be the best. If the point is ever reached —and it may well be reached quite quickly—when the public becomes more taxi-minded than it is at present, there will come a demand from other sections of the community for more taxis. It might express itself in the form of a less good service for the travelling public. If it were wise the British Transport Commission would look at the question of justice as part of the long-term service for which they hope and which they are required to give to the travelling public.

Mr. H, Hynd: Is my hon. Friend being quite fair to the Commission on this? I have a copy of the Report from which he quoted. After mentioning the suggestion of the Transport and General Workers' Union for an agreement, it goes on to say at page 5:
the Commission have agreed with this in principle and they recommended to the regions …
Should not the hon. Member mention that when he speaks of the proposals of

the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Mr. Wigg: I am sure it agreed in principle with the recommendations of the Transport and General Workers' Union, but it has done nothing about it [Interruption.] It is always difficult to be interrupted when other hon. Members are waiting to speak, especially about a point which has passed. I will come right away to acknowledge the work that was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who called a conference a week or ten days ago in a room upstairs. He had the most remarkable gathering I have seen here since I have been in this House. There we had the opportunity of listening to a national officer of the Transport and General Workers' Union putting a point of view that carried the meeting with him.

Mr. George Brown: He was not a national officer.

Mr. Wigg: I do not know about that. All I can say is that he spoke on behalf of his union, talked common sense, and carried the meeting with him. It may be that he was not a national officer of the union, but I hope he soon will be. He certainly spoke very well at that meeting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough well knows, because he was in the chair. The meeting came to the conclusion that the point of view put to them was reasonable. There were people from all parts of the country and all parts of the House, listening to what the speaker had to say, expressing the views of the union. It was clear that nothing had been done about that recommendation, and I am concerned here with something being done about it.
I will go into the merits of the case because it is only fair that I should do so. I want machinery throughout this industry to help humble citizens by giving them an opportunity of making their views known. The men for whom I am speaking are law-abiding, decent citizens They suffer from a great sense of grievance. I only came into this matter because I was concerned about the rights of the ex-Service men. That is how I stumbled into it. I went to a meeting at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, and I am very glad that I did. If anyone tells me


that since the meeting the British Transport Commission has had a change of heart and has done something more than accept the case in principle, has done something about it, I shall be delighted.
I want the Minister to do what nobody has yet been able to do, which is to say that machinery exists whereby these men's legitimate grievances can be examined. I have heard only what they say, what the people who have come to me say, and what other hon. Members, who know much more about it than I do, have had to say. A substantial case has been made out. For my part, I have never put a Question down. I certainly accompanied the deputation. I was asked to, and I went.
I have also corresponded with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, and pretty rough treatment I got for my pains. I will weary the House by reading a letter which I wrote to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission on 2nd January, 1959. I referred to my correspondence in 1950 with the Commission about the taxi-cab arrangements at Paragon Station, Hull, and went on:
1 regret to say that the matter was not resolved to the satisfaction of the ex-Service men who were seeking to earn a living by providing a taxi service for passengers.
As I understand the position a firm had been given a cab stand licence for any years, and as business increased this firm was allowed to add to their fleet of taxis in order to cope with it, but the British Transport Commission did not appear willing to grant licences to firms other than the one which was already operating. I understand from a colleague that the same kind of difficulty exists at Reading; indeed, there are many stations where monopoly rights have been given and the British Transport Commission have felt unable to revise their policy.
I wonder if you would be good enough to have a look at the position again and see whether it is possible to meet the legitimate requests of owner-drivers in Hull and, indeed, in other places, that they should have an opportunity of picking up passengers under licence. The previous argument used by Lord Hurcomb about the congestion in the station yard did not carry much weight at the time for obviously, it is possible to limit the number of cabs in the yard at a particular moment by providing stands outside and inside as, for example, happens at all the big London termini.
It also seems to me all wrong that some stations should be open to any licensed cab owner who is willing to pay the necessary rent, while other stations are kept tied to one owner only. I would like to stress that I am not seeeking to dispossess the existing owner of his privilege of working from the station

forecourt, but I am suggesting that he should be allowed to pay rent, as should others, and the privilege of picking up in the forecourt would then be shared in the interests of the travelling public. This would also give the British Transport Commission a greater rental per annum. I shall be very grateful if you will let me have your comments.
I think that is a reasonable letter and shows that while I was concerned with the general position I was, as my previous correspondence showed, mainly concerned with the position of the ex-Service men. Now let me read the reply I got from Sir Brian Robertson. It says:
I am a little embarrassed by your request that I should re-examine the taxi-cab arrangements at Paragon Station, Hull, because strictly speaking I think this matter should be raised by one of the Hull Members, or alternatively I should perhaps let them know that I am replying to you, who have taken up the case of behalf of some of the drivers concerned.
I make no complaint about Sir Brian Robertson's suggesting that there was some impropriety in my raising matters concerned with Hull, because I think 3 had made my position clear. Nevertheless, I think he was getting a little near the line in doing so. It is not the job of the chairman of any nationalised corporation to question the propriety of any action that a Member of Parliament takes in what he thinks is the pursuance of his duties.

Mr. John Peyton: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. How much would he relish it if any hon. Member of this House corresponded with the chairman of the British Transport Commission about something which exclusively concerned the hon. Member's constituency of Dudley? It is the chairman's duty to see that he does not offend the proper jealousies of other hon. Members who wish to safeguard the interests of their constituencies.

Mr. Wigg: That is a perfectly proper point. The hon. Member cannot have followed me for I was raising a matter which was not exclusively concerned with Hull. It was a matter of general concern. For arrangements in Hull was one of the worst I know. I made it absolutely clear that I was raising the general question and mentioned Hull as a particular bad case. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I mentioned that the case of Hull was brought to my notice by Mr. Mackay


who was then Member for a Hull constituency.

Captain M. Hewitson: Mr. Mackay never at any time represented the area which is covered by Hull station.

Mr. Wigg: It was Mr. Mackay who sent these people to me. If my hon. Friend considers himself aggrieved, let me point out to him that he came to my constituency, never consulted me, and spoke an behalf of Aims in Industry and took a fee for it. I would rather not talk to him like this, but he has got in range of my left-hook.
I do not think I acted with any impropriety, and I certainly had no memories of that instance in my mind, although of course they were called to my mind. I think the letter of Sir Brian Robertson was an improper letter. In raising the matter I am not concerned with my interests, because no hon. Member has any particular right of privilege in these matters, but it is a question of the privilege of the whole House. The point at issue is not the fact that I raised the question of Hull, but whether the House of Commons is the place where an aggrieved citizen can seek redress of his grievances. Let us not blur or fog the issue, that is the point. If I may, I will now deal with the question of the British Transport Commission—

Mr. Arthur Holt: Will the hon. Member deal with the rest of the letter?

Mr. Wigg: I do not think it matters much. It goes on to deal with the actual merits of the case which Sir Brian Robertson turned down, as he has a perfect right to. I am now arguing that this is dealt with on no principle at all that has any regard for the interests of the travelling public and the interest of taxi-drivers. In passing this Bill we are in danger of allowing the British Transport Commission to get itself into the state of mind in which it is concerned, as all these big organisations are, with what is administratively convenient. It is a process of thought that will go on. It goes on in the Army and any large-scale organisation. Unless there is a corrective, that is what happens.
There appeared in the Manchester Guardianon 11th February a very able

article on restrictive practices in the taxi-cab world and discrimination at railway stations. It was in the best tradition of the Manchester Guardian. It was objective, factually accurate and aroused no comment, until this morning when there appeared a letter signed by Mr. J. H. Brebner about the article. He said:
The writer of your article on 'Restrictive Practices in the Taxi-cab World * has evidently been misled by taxi-drivers who claim that there is unfair discrimination.
He argued that it is wrong to be influenced by the taxi-drivers and went on to say that the Central Transport Consultative Committee has recently carried out the most thorough examination into what he called the "tenancy cab system" at railway stations. Those words were not used by the Manchester Guardian but the title of the report drawn up by the Administrative Committee was:
Tenancy Taxi-cab System at Railway Stations.
He went on to say that the Committee said no complaints had been received from the travelling public, but he did not point out that no machinery existed for gathering complaints.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: My hon. Friend says that there is no machinery, but surely there is the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

Mr. Wigg: In the first part of my speech, I made it plain that the Committee dealt with the fact that there were no complaints, and I made the point that it was not surprising that people did not send in complaints. Perhaps they did not know where to send complaints.

Mr. Popplewell: There is machinery available, but if people do not use it because they do not know about it that is their affair.

Mr. Wigg: I was quoting from a letter by Mr. Brebner, who used the argument. After all, he is a servant of the Commission. He is trying to illuminate the public mind, and his job is to be objective and fair. I say that he has got into the habit of mind of justifying the action of the British Transport Commission which has never at any point given any sign of being willing to investigate complaints of these taxi-drivers.

Mr. G. Brown: This really is not quite fair. There is a long report by the


Central Transport Consultative Committee, which went into this matter at great length. It is true that it says at one stage:
On the other hand the absence of complaint is not of itself conclusive evidence that the service is satisfactory, as we cannot be sure that the average traveller would think it worth while to lodge a complaint or would know where to address it.
Having said that, it goes on at great length to examine the complaint and then to find the complaint not proved. It is not fair for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to say that Mr. Brebner or the Commission is not interested in finding out. Here was a machine and, because no one used it, it is not right to say that there is no machinery.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend has failed to appreciate that the part which the Consultative Committee says is not proven in the question of the complaint, but it goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will address me. I cannot hear him when he turns the back of his head towards me.

Mr. Wigg: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker. I should have known better than that. My right hon. Friend was dealing with the point on which the Consultative Committee felt empowered to decide, namely, the question whether there was legitimate complaint from the travelling public. On that point, it says that it is satisfied that an adequate service is provided. That is not the point. The point on which complaints by taxi-drivers are centred is that the system is unfair to taxi-drivers. On that point the Committee said that, having regard to its remit, it was not able to take it into consideration.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member has quoted a great number of things from the Report, but he has not quoted the most vital paragraph, paragraph iv in the conclusions, that:
The Committees consider that by and large the arrangements at present in force work well and do not think that there should be any change in the existing arrangements with the licensees…
It cannot go further than that.

Mr. Wigg: If the Committee were considering only whether the arrangements worked well from the point of view of

the travelling public, I should have no more to say, but the reason it was sent to the Consultative Committee, as the Committee makes perfectly clear in the opening paragraph, was that there was agitation among those engaged in the taxi business and many Members of Parliament who had sent to the Minister cases for investigation on the issue of unfairness. The Consultative Committee deals with complaints from the transport industry. It says itself that it is not concerned with the question of unfairness in the taxi industry. I am not raising this on the ground of whether it has worked well from the point of view of the travelling public. My case is that taxi-drivers and owners in general, and ex-Service men in particular, have no machinery whatever for ventilating grievances. I therefore seek to block the Bill because the House of Commons is the means whereby aggrieved citizens can get their grievances, not necessarily redressed, but at least ventilated. On the issue of unfairness to taxi-drivers, the Committee says it is not for it to take it into consideration because it is excluded from the terms of its remit.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: On the question of fairness to the travelling public, is it not the case that the Consultative Committee was furnished by the travelling public with a lot of signed statements which it rejected solely on the ground that they were solicited statements, whereas they were, like any market research, a perfectly genuine reaction of the travelling public which wished to complain to the Consultative Committee? Those statements were set aside.

Mr. Wigg: That is true. Perhaps it would have been better to read the Report from beginning to end. Page 6 reads:
Only before the Yorkshire Committee at Leeds, and the East Midland Committee at Oxford, did any number of complaints emerge, and these appeared to have been specially canvassed, and, therefore, did not, in the Committee's view, possess very much significance.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) brought some Leeds taxi-drivers to the conference. They told me that they had been asked to produce evidence, so they went about obtaining it. When they got it it was said that it was specially canvassed. I could not see


what else they could have done, but the evidence was ruled out of order.

Mr. J. T. Price: On the question of interference, since my hon. Friend is following this line of argument and is expressing, quite fairly, the grievances of taxi-men, I should like to say that I come through Manchester every week. I do not represent that city but another part of Lancashire. There are four main railways stations in Manchester. Three of them, London Road, Victoria and Central, are at widely separated points, and the taxi-men have Manchester so sewn up that the corporation has failed to put on an effective bus service to link the three stations together. If we are discussing interference, we ought to have all these factors in the pot, because this is a big grievance for the Manchester public. It is no good theorising about these things. The situation is not as my hon. Friend is painting it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We would get on better if we had a debate and not an argument.

Mr. Wigg: I have already said that Manchester and London were the two places in which there was a free-for-all. The situation in London is governed by the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907, under schemes approved by the Secretary of State. If Manchester wanted to promote a Bill, it could be equally well governed.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) is not here, because Liverpool is another example where this matter has been adequately handled by the local authority. There are other local authorities—Nottingham is one and Leeds another—which are most anxious to get control. This remit of the Consultative Committee is not the only one. This matter was sent to a working party of the Home Office in 1949. The findings of that working party, which are referred to in the Consultative Committee's Report, on the one hand, and the policy of the Transport and General Workers' Union, on the other, indicate the line that should be followed.
It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule for all parts of the country. The first thing that is necessary is that machinery should be brought into being

so that taxicab associations or organised bodies reflecting the opinion of taxi-cab owners and drivers should have access to British Transport Regions so that their point of view can be expressed. First, there should be some means whereby their grievances can be adequately ventilated, and it is important that they shall have confidence in that machine.
Secondly, in the larger centres of population, such as Leeds, Nottingham, Slough and Hull, an organisation should be called into being on a voluntary basis which would reflect local opinion. The local authorities and chief constables could be represented and schemes could be brought into existence which would guarantee a rota right round the clock so that the public is served and access to the forecourt is available, as at all the London termini. It is true that the forecourt of many stations in big towns is restricted. It is small and therefore the number of taxis which it could take is restricted. It should be possible, in co-operation with the local authorities, to have a feeder stand in the station which would feed the taxis into the station. What must be broken is the kind of monopoly which exists in Hull. This sort of thing is absolutely wrong and unjustifiable.
I have already spoken much longer than I intended, but I have had many interruptions and that always lengthens a speech.

Mr. David Jones: My hon. Friend has been trailing his coat a bit.

Mr. Wigg: I do not complain about interruptions. I simply battle on and do my best.
I should like to pay tribute to the kindness of the Minister in receiving the deputation. I am sure that he understands the point of view of these people. He knows that they feel very strongly about it and that they are not getting a square deal. It is very important that they should feel that their grievances are being noted and investigated, if possible, and that if anything is wrong it will be put right. I realise that the Minister is concerned with policy matters and is up against the difficult question of responsibility and accountability for administrative questions. But there is plenty of room for manoeuvre and good will. I still think that the contribution


of the spokesman for the Transport and General Workers' Union was very important, both to the conference upstairs and also when he saw the Minister. The constructive policies advocated by the taxi-drivers provide a ground for removing or, at least, clearing up a very difficult situation.
I conclude by again expressing my thanks to the Minister for the help which he has given.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is more than eleven years since my predecessor, who represented Eton and Slough, first raised this matter. Since then, it has become a national issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has referred to the conference which was held in the House ten days ago, at which representatives of the National Cab Owners' Association, the National Taxi-Drivers' Association, the taxi-cab section of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the taxi-cab section of the British Legion were present. In addition, there were local taxi-drivers' associations from all parts of the country.
There are 609 places in this country which are affected by the issue which we are raising, and we make no apology for raising it because we believe that a fundamental principle is involved. Our case is so reasonable that I shall not put it forward in a spirit of controversy. I say at once that we are not tied to a particular solution of the problem. All that we ask is that there shall be equity between the licensed taxi-cab drivers in the use of the station ranks.
The normal custom for taxi-drivers in the case of public ranks is to fill them by rota. As the first taxi is engaged, a second cab follows its place and others come in behind. There is, however, the exception of the ranks at the stations. I suppose that the railway stations are the busiest centres for taxi-drivers to pick up passengers, but at the 609 railway stations scattered about the country only a privileged few taxi-cab drivers are allowed to use the ranks. It is true that they pay a trifling rent of an average of 3s. a week per cab, but the chairman of the Transport Commission, Sir Brian Robertson,

has told us that it is not the money involved which is the important issue to be discussed.
A great democratic principle is at issue here. The railways are a public service. I urge that as a principle of democracy there should not be privilege in association with that public service, and that in any locality all licensed taxi-cab drivers, as a matter of fairness and equity, should have an equal opportunity to use the station rank.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Member says that those drivers who are chosen to stand on a cab rank at a station pay a fee of 3s. a week. Have they some obligations for this privilege? If so, will the hon. Member tell us what these obligations are?

Mr. Brockway: If the hon. Member will forgive me, although my notes include the point which he has raised, and I will come to it, I wish to conclude my speech within a reasonable time and not to speak for long.
Perhaps I may illustrate the problem by the situation at Slough. In the forecourt of the station is a rank which only seven of the licensed taxi-drivers are permitted to use. The total number of taxi-cabs in Slough is 35. A hundred yards away from this station rank there is a public rank. Until recently, the cabs on the public rank have not been allowed to pick up a passenger from the station. If a passenger has arrived at the station with luggage, even though it may be a wet night, and the station rank has been empty, as is frequently the case, the passenger has had to carry his luggage the 100 yards to the public rank before he could get a taxi-cab.
The injustice, the stupidity and the daftness of that situation have been so great that after considerable agitation about it the Home Office appointed a Working Party on Hackney Carriages, which made the sensible recommendation that where there was a public rank near a station rank, when the station rank was empty it should be filled by rota from the public rank. That is the proposal of the Working Party, and this is now the first proposal which the taxi-drivers now make.
Their second proposal is that where there is no public rank to feed the station rank, arrangements should be made with the local authority by which the station rank can be filled on a basis of equity.


Even if a public rank is some distance away, in these days not only of the telephone, but of the radio service, it is a quite practical suggestion that vacancies in the station ranks should be filled in that way.
The third proposal, which both the House and the Transport Commission should consider, is that responsibility for the station ranks should be transferred to the local authority or to the watch committee, which is ordinarily responsible for the taxi-drivers' ranks. The Transport Commission could charge the local authority a rent for the rank on its property, but I have the authority of the taxi-drivers' associations to say that they would be very ready to reimburse the local authorities for that charge.
As I have said, it is more than eight years since I first raised this issue in the House. We have raised with two Home Secretaries and two Ministers of Transport and we have gone on deputation to Sir Brian Robertson. The view of the Ministers was that this was a matter of day-to-day management and not a matter of policy. I challenge that view. It seems to me that when we have a national service which denies democracy and equity to the general body of taxi-drivers, it is a matter of policy and not simply a matter of day-to-day management.
When we go to Sir Brian Robertson he tells us that this is a matter for the regional managers. Ministers shift it to the chairman of the Transport Commission and the chairman shifts it to the regional managers. None of them seems to appreciate that a problem of equity and democracy is involved. It was only after repeated Questions and more than one debate in the House of Commons that the subject was referred to the Consultative Committee, where, necessarily, because consultative committees deal with the interests of passengers and not those of the workers or of the taxi-drivers, the terms of reference were limited. The democratic principle which I have expressed, and fairness to taxi-drivers between one man and another, were ruled out. The only subject with which the Consultative Committee could deal was the interests of the travelling public. Even that was inadequate.
From experience, I have no doubt that the present system of limiting the use of

station ranks to a few taxi-drivers is also a disadvantage to the public. I have taken note of my last 32 visits to the Slough station. On 17 of those occasions, there has been no taxi whatever on the station taxi rank. On 11 of those occasions, there has been only one taxi and on four occasions, there have been only two taxis. From the point of view of the public, the limitation of these ranks to a few privileged taxi-drivers is also a great disservice.
I pass to the two main recommendations made by the Consultative Committee. The first is that when there is no taxi on the station rank, the passengers can be picked up from other ranks. My first comment is that that is unfair to the taxi-drivers on the other ranks. They may be in a public rank and waiting for hours; a taxi may come to the privileged rank, pick up a passenger, go away, come back and still have precedence over those who have been waiting at the public rank. It may be hours before a situation arises in which the taxi in the public rank has the possibility of picking up a passenger at the station.

Mr. D. Jones: Would not the reverse be the case in exactly the same way? One might have a taxi on the public rank picking up a passenger and coming back while a taxi in the station rank has been waiting an hour or an hour and a half for a train.

Mr. Brockway: Yes, but I suggest that stations are the busier points. There is also the fact that the privileged taxi-drivers pay a certain amount in rent and they would not do that if there was not an advantage. Evidence was given to us upstairs from many places of the much larger revenue which can be obtained if one has a privileged position on a station rank.

Mr. Thomas Steele: A moment ago my hon. Friend was arguing the opposite to that. He was saying that there were no taxis on the station rank.

Mr. Brockway: Both situations can be true in different circumstances on different occasions.
The second reason for resisting this as a fair solution is that the drivers on the public ranks regard their services in this kind of way as just bolstering up the


privileged system, and they feel that they are made to serve the interests of the few who have privilege.
I now come to the second recommendation, and on this I will deal with the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). The second suggestion made by the Consultative Committee is that if a comprehensive association is formed of all the taxi-cab drivers, which will assume responsibility for manning the station rank, the Commission will be prepared to negotiate with it on the basis of equity.
My hon. Friend asked whether those who man the station ranks have not certain duties to perform. Theoretically, they have. They are supposed to be on the station ranks. They are supposed to be there when trains arrive. In practice, that is by no means the case. It is certainly not the case in Slough.

Mr. Popplewell: It is in most places.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is the case at terminal stations. At the main stations of Manchester—London Road and Central —the taxis are at the station all night, rendering a service to the public.

Mr. Brockway: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has helped to make my case. London Road Station, Central Station and Victoria Station, Manchester, have long been stations where there are no privileged ranks. The one station where there has been a privileged rank has been Exchange Station, but as a result of our agitation and our going on a deputation to the chairman of the British Transport Commission, even that station now has no privileged system.
The proposal of the Consultative Committee is that there should be a comprehensive association of all the taxi-drivers in the locality and that this association should take over the responsibility of manning the station rank, contributing something towards the rent, so that the Transport Commission would be able to deal directly with someone who was in control of the station rank.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will listen to what I am going to say. I believe that it is a fruitful idea which has been proposed by the Consultative Committee and I welcome it. I should like to know, however, whether

this association must be comprehensive. What is meant by "comprehensive"? Does it mean that all the local taxi-drivers must agree to join the association? If so, I suggest that it is unlikely that those who now have the privilege will agree to surrender it and become part of the larger association.
The majority of the taxi-drivers in Slough proposed an association of this kind, saying, "We will take the responsibility for running the station rank. We will have a rota of men who will be on duty all day and at night for excursion trains. We will have a telephone which will enable not only passengers who arrive at the station to use the taxis, but also passengers who want to come to the station." Naturally, the seven privileged taxi-drivers declined to become members of the association.
Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary very carefully consider whether the term "comprehensive" should not be used to cover a majority of the taxi-drivers of a locality? If a majority of the taxi-drivers in a locality agreed to become members of an association, would the Commission be prepared to recognise it?

Mr. H. Hynd: The wording is that in each area there should be an association of taxi-cab owners who would, in the main, be members of the union.

Mr. Brockway: I have not got the document in my hand at the moment, but the term "comprehensive" is, I think, used in it. It has certainly been used in the answers which we have received from the Commission and the Minister.

Mr. Popplewell: I have looked carefully at the document, but cannot find the word "comprehensive".

Mr. Brockway: I cannot point to it at a moment's notice, but the Minister will remember that when we met him on a deputation only last week "comprehensive" was the word which he used when we raised this matter. Naturally, we shall not get all the tax-drivers in a town-privileged and unprivileged to agree, and if we are to speak of an association with which an arrangement is made, a majority should be allowed to constitute that association. We ask that consideration shall be given to that point.
We also ask the Minister to consider with the Minister of Housing and Local


Government whether the ranks for taxi-drivers in stations should not come under the watch committee or local authority in the same way as the public ranks do.
Our third request is that after this debate the Minister shall use his influence with Sir Brian Robertson, the chairman of the Commission, to consider these matters with us again and to make a new approach to the whole problem.
This may seem to be a comparatively small matter, but I believe that there are involved in it real issues of democracy, justice and fairness between men and men. It seems to me to be the duty of Parliament to consider these issues in small things as well as in large ones.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to oppose this Amendment. We have heard from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) a great deal about the interests of the taxi-drivers but very little about the interests of the travelling public. I would suppose that the democratic principle for public transport is that transport should carry the public.
From my personal experience as a railway solicitor for twenty years, I can say that this is a very old problem. I would remind those hon. Members that these ancient tenancies, or privileges as they used to be called at one time, did not arise because of administrative convenience. They arose because the old, private enterprise railway companies considered that the paramount consideration was to look after the travelling public. After all, they were trying to make money out of them, and they had regard for the interests of the public, and any ancillary services which would attract the public they encouraged. They found from long experience that unless they made special arrangements with taxi-drivers, especially at the smaller stations, there was not an adequate taxi service to take people to and from the stations.
There were two considerations which used to be borne in mind, one of which no longer applies. One was that a regular cab service—and this dates back to the old horse cabs—should be maintained at all reasonable times to meet trains. The second was that the cabbies should be a

reasonable sort of people. In the early days cabbies were inclined to be of a rather rough type of person sometimes rather undesirable. They were sometimes drunken and ill-spoken. In order to have control over the cabbies the privilege, as it used to be called, was devised of allowing them to occupy stands at stations, and a small charge was made in return for the privilege which could be withdrawn if the cabbies did not behave themselves.
It is all very well for London and Manchester and other big cities to talk about "a free-for-all system". That may work there, but the vast majority of the towns of our land are not like London and Manchester, and even some quite big towns do not have stations with the same amount of access space available as have the big stations in the greatest cities. They have only a very limited space and it is becoming more and more limited because of the number of private cars.
More and more people are arriving at the stations or leaving them in their own private cars and the number of private cars is increasing. If the station approaches are cluttered up with waiting cabs at times at which popular trains arrive, and there are also so many private motorists trying to get into the station that no one can get into or out of the station yard, that is a big disincentive to people to travel by train. That is a consideration which must be paramount to the British Transport Commission. Therefore, it is very reasonable that it should limit the number of cabs on ranks at stations and in return give the people on the ranks some privilege.

Miss Alice Bacon: Surely, to limit the number of cab ranks is not quite the same as limiting the number of taxis which could go on the ranks from time to time?

Mr. Wilson: It is necessary to do so, otherwise the taxis come only at the times of the popular trains and at the popular stations.
The two principal stations in my constituency are at Truro and St. Austell, and the two principal trains are the up and down "Limited", as the Cornish Riviera Express is called. I feel that there would be a tendency for a number of taxi drivers to arrive to meet only these popular trains which are likely to carry a large


number of passengers, and not to meet early or late trains, so that passengers on those trains would not be able to get a cab at the station.
I have had a complaint from a driver at St. Austell that he was not allowed to go into the station yard. I took the trouble to investigate the case, and I looked at the site with the railway officials, and I had to admit that the railway people were perfectly justified. The station yard is used by buses as well as by cars, and it is very limited, and if there were more cab ranks there would not be room in the yard for the buses and the private cars. That is why the cab ranks are limited to certain cabs. I think that meets the hon. Lady's point.
I can tell the hon. Member for Eton and Slough that I know Slough Station very well. I have known it since 1928.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member is charging me and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), quite unfairly, with not being concerned with the public interest, but he has brought in as a basis of his argument the requirements of private car owners. Does he imagine that everyone travels by private car or goes to the station in a private car?

Mr. Wilson: Cars are being used more and more, and people arrive at railway stations by private car more and more, and they can cause a whole queue of taxis to wait there. That is one reason why it is necessary to limit the number of cabs.
If we limit the number of cabs we want to be sure that they will meet all the trains, not only the most popular trains of the day. Therefore, we limit the number of ranks and limit the number of cab owners who use them, so that they take the rough with the smooth and turn up at the station at unpopular hours as well as at the popular hours, and take their turn.
When there is a big taxi-cab association it is quite common for the rules to be observed. That is so in the South Coast towns. Of 711 agreements 27 are with taxi-cab associations mostly in South Coast resorts, where a large number of associations do control most of the taxi-drivers and are able to guarantee that there will be an adequate service and that the rules will be observed.
I believe I am right in saying that the British Transport Commission has given the general direction that when there are such associations and that when the existing licences run out—that is what they are: they are not really tenancies—then the new licences will be to the members of the local taxi association. Of course, when in any one place there are two taxi associations, as I believe there are in the division of the hon. Lady for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), and they are in rivalry and will not agree among themselves which is the official one, that places the railway authorities in very great difficulty.
I think that the Central Transport Consultative Committee was quite right in saying that the existing arrangements should be continued unless there is an absolutely clear case for altering them. However, in many rural areas if there were not individual agreements with individual taxi-drivers there would be no agreements at all, and a driver would meet an early, unpopular train, or not, as he felt inclined, according to the weather, and passengers might be left stranded on the station.
I hope that the Transport Commission will carry out one small, useful idea in its Report and publish the telephone numbers of taxi ranks so that if there is not a taxi at the station one can telephone to another rank.
I mentioned just now the station at Slough. I have known that station for many years. It is observed in the Report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee that if there is no cab on the rank it is the practice to call a taxi from another rank. I must say that that used to be so in the old days, and I should be surprised if it were not so now.

Mr. Brockway: Only quite recently, since the Report of the Consultative Committee.

Mr. Wilson: I do not know how long the hon. Member has been associated with Slough. I cannot swear to it. of course, but I should have thought that that had always obtained there; that if there is no taxi on the rank the porter calls one from the nearest rank.
Even what is recommended about the telephone numbers is quite common practice at a number of stations. To assist a passenger a porter or other member of the station staff, if there is no


taxi available at the station, telephones on the station telephone to the nearest cab rank to get a cab for a passenger.
I do not want to prolong my speech because I know a number of other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but I do think that this Amendment is mistaken. I think it is mistaken that this Bill should be held up because of the alleged difficulties of a small number of taxi-drivers. I am sure that the Consultative Committee is right in saying that the present system is working well. I do not think there is any unfairness to the taxi drivers. My personal experience is that whenever I put forward a case the British Transport Commission looks into it, and if there is a reasonable vacancy it will allow any other taxi-cab driver to be added to the list, if there is room for him. I think that this Motion should be opposed.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I intervene only because the Transport and General Workers' Union has been mentioned a number of times tonight and it may be that the views of the union are not clearly understood.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that it is a great mistake to give the impression that those of us who have a special interest among our general interests, such as looking after the interests of workers, are not concerned with the interests of the travelling public. We are, of course, concerned to see that the people who arrive at railway stations, particularly those who arrive at awkward times, can get the service which they ought to be able to get when they arrive. Things have been said tonight which make it sound as though we are more concerned with the fairness between one taxi-driver and another than with the interests of the travelling public. That is not the position of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I want to make it plain that we are interested in the public having a service, because it is the business of our members to see that they have it.
Secondly, I want to make it clear that, whatever was said by Mr. Francis or anybody else, the Transport and General Workers' Union is not in favour of a free-for all at general stations. It may

be said that London and Manchester have a free-for-all, but at London and Manchester there is such a constant flow of traffic passing through that a free-for-all means that all taxi-drivers have plenty to do pretty well all the time. There are many stations where this is not true, and the Transport and General Workers' Union understands that.
Let us also make it clear that in the Transport and General Workers' Union we are in favour, on the whole, of regulations rather than general disorder based on the belief that it will be all right on the night, because sometimes it is not all right on the night.
Where do we come into this? We come into it by saying that if it can be arranged for the general public to get the service which it ought to have without creating a privileged class of taxi-drivers, then it ought to be arranged in that way. That is a better way than any other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has a good friend in me in many things if not in all things, and he ought not to make these comments about people reading documents before they come to the House. The fact that I have a document in my hand does not mean that I have not read it previously. My hon. Friend is apt to think that he is the only one who has read a document. That is not true. He believes that he is, and he gets a lot of fun out of it, but it is not true.
I believe that the Central Transport Consultative Committee went too far. I quote from page 12, paragraph 3, in which the Committee lays down the reasons for its views on remedy (d). The Committee says that it is a remedy which can operate and in fact does operate in ideal circumstances but that it is not suitable unless the conditions are met which are set out in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). By the end the Committee has given the general impression that the method was such that it might have been the method for Utopia rather than the ordinary method.
We believe that there are many cases where there can be an association including a sufficiently large number of taxi-drivers for it to be reasonable to make an agreement with them and on the basis of that agreement to withdraw the privilege to any licensed drivers. On the other hand, if it is impossible to have such an arrangement, or if there


are two associations side by side and it its impossible to make an agreement with a sufficiently large number of them, then we of the Transport and General Workers' Union would not go so far as to say that in those circumstances the privilege should be withdrawn.
We ought to put the onus on the drivers themselves. If they want to get rid of this privilege, at least enough of them must organise. This has not been said clearly enough tonight. The Commission cannot withdraw the privilege without a sufficient degree of organisation among the taxi-drivers themselves, which is not a trade conducive to easy organisation. We all know what the job is like. Nevertheless, they must be willing to give up a certain degree of their freedom and their cherished liberties, in return for getting rid of the privilege. That has been the view of the Transport and General Workers' Union all the way through.
I was not present at the meeting which was held but I am told that many wild things were said. Mr. Francis thought it very important to do what he could to get the taxi-drivers there to face the problems involved. If the Transport Commission were to end these privilege arrangements we could go a long way to robbing the travelling public of a consideration which it ought to have, without making anybody much better off. In addition, there would be a lot of jostling when the good trains arrived.
We of the Transport and General Workers' Union support my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in using this occasion to raise this matter. It is a good thing that it has been used for the debate, and we are not at all hesitant about holding up the Bill. We are in agreement with my hon. Friend in saying to the Transport Commission that we think that this Report of the Consultative Committee errs too much on the side of pouring cold water on the idea of organisation, and that in fact there ought to be an attempt made to reach an agreement and to form associations. We do not support anybody who thinks that if that is not done there ought to be a free-for-all. A free-for-all does not appeal to us as a very good thing. On page 5 of its Report the Consultative Committee gives one example at Tonbridge where an attempt was made to reach an agreement and it collapsed because apparently

the local association was not in a position to do this.
I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that the Commission agrees in principle with the case made out by the Transport and General Workers' Union. I should like him to go a little further and to say that he and his Ministry will put some pressure on the British Transport Commission not to be as cold about this as the Consultative Committee but, in return for our sense of responsibility, to do what it can, in association with us and with anybody else who represents taxi-drivers, to form associations so that voluntary agreement can take the place of this specially created privilege. None of us likes an extra privilege. It is offensive. The man who has not the privilege feels that he has a grouse, and if the other man turns out at 2 a.m., the man who has a grouse knows nothing about it and never sees the other side of the penny. It does not stop him from going on with his grouse. It would, therefore, be a good thing to get rid of this extra-statutory privilege if we could. With respect, I think a little more pressure on the Commission is needed in order to shake it out of a certain coldness of mind towards what is required. It is not enough to say, "We are in principle in favour of it." A little active interest also should be shown.
I think I can say that we in the Transport and General Workers' Union have been very responsible. We have not, as we could very well have done, entered upon some sort of competition for membership. We could have gone a long way in the other direction and tried to bid for members on the other basis. We have taken a responsible position, without any rigid belief in the privilege which some of our members benefit from, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, a wide open belief in freedom for all. We are, I think, entitled to ask the Ministry to help us by putting some pressure on the B.T.C. so that it will show some warm keenness in favour of voluntary agreements in order to reduce this extra-statutory privilege which everyone, I think, agrees should go.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I confess that my main interest in the Bill originally was directed not so much to what it omits, but to what it contains. I felt


rather drawn by some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who suffered a good deal of all-round fire this evening but who, I think, needs no frontal attack. I am saved a good deal of trouble by what has just been said by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who very fairly put the arguments of the two sides with which the House has become quite familiar.
I will add only one general point for the attention of the hon. Member for Dudley. There is really no new principle involved here. The British Transport Commission is not the only body concerned with the principle at stake here. I spend a good deal of my time arguing the same principle in relation to local bus services. The same sort of situation arises. The bus services which are required by Statute to give a service in rough and in smooth on good routes and bad, on routes which lose money and on routes which make money, like, very naturally, to be protected against the odd, miscalled "pirate" who may try to come in to skim the cream from the market, but who is not prepared to do the difficult end of the job. A similar principle is involved.
In that case, there are, under Statute, licensing authorities which deal with the problem. For the edification of the hon. Member for Dudley, I will add that this procedure was established in 1930, under an Act of Parliament passed by a Labour Government. I suggest, therefore, that the broad principle which has been under discussion here has a respectable history and background, and it is acknowledged not only in relation to taxi-cabs, but in relation to other services, also. If someone is to provide a service for the general public, in good times and in bad, at good hours and at awkward hours, some kind of control must be observed. In this matter, the British Transport Commission, which did not of its own volition seek possession, as I understand it, of the forecourts and immediately adjacent areas which it now has, has certain obligations to fulfil. The Commission has my sympathy in that matter.
I hope that one or two hon. Members will go along with me when I say that I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley singled out a letter from Sir Brian Robertson, the chairman of the British

Transport Commission, for criticism. I should like to put on record that, in my experience, Sir Brian, who receives some rather awkward letters at times from both sides of the House, deals very fairly with them all. He is in a rather equivocal position. It is by no means easy for the chairman of what is sometimes a controversial body to answer all Members of Parliament in a manner which is both fair to his own organisation and fair to us. I suggest that he does a good job on the whole, and that the hon. Member for Dudley was a little less than fair in singling out that letter and speaking of Sir Brian as he did.
I earnestly ask the hon. Member for Dudley and his hon. Friends not to delay unduly this Measure, if they can possibly avoid it. I admit that I have an interest. A great deal of the Bill concerns modernisation, particularly modernisation in south-eastern England. The Bill really illustrates the vicissitudes of modernisation of British Railways. It is difficult enough physically without political elements entering into it as well. Although I accept that, under any Administration, the railways would have to come to the House to seek Parliamentary authority for the sort of matters contained in the Bill, it is unfortunate that what is, in the main, a Measure designed to advance the modernisation of the railways—behind which all hon. Members stand—should be mixed up with one or two extraneous issues. I say that without for a moment denying the absolute right of hon. Gentlemen to raise this point.
The Bill enshrines some very urgent matters. There are within it provisions which must go through if—thinking of my part of the country now—the quarter of a million people who are looking forward to an improved, modernised electrified system in south-eastern England, are to be given the means of travelling to and from their work. It is not too much to say that some of the plans herein contained govern the lives of those quarter of a million people who travel to and from London from Kent.
The winter is a very rough time for the commuter. Many are seized with a mood of despair, and the morale of those in this region, which part of this Bill is designed to cover, is very low. The Commission faces the frightful problem of bringing these very large numbers of people into London at the peak hours.


In addition, we have an enormous electrification scheme, which has caused some unwonted delays. These travellers have lately received explanations from British Railways, and the main item in one of the latest pamphlets asked, "Late trains —who's to blame?"
I know that the hon. Member for Dudley would not like to have blame attributed to him for either directly or indirectly holding up this very important Measure. The urgent need is to cut the time as much as possible; to cut the number of winters during which the people have to travel on the present rather wobbly system. We do not want to waste an unnecessary day, or an unnecessary week. With luck, we shall have 75 miles of line in Kent electrified by June, and the whole job finished by June, 1962. There will then be 235 miles of line modernised at a cost of £45 million. That is what part of this Bill is about.
Some of us are now getting very excited about our motorways, but those concerned with them seem to be able to get on with their works on a vast scale without having to come to this House for powers. We should, I think, seek to make this Bill the platform for a single legitimate issue, and to remember that for the quarter of a million people of whom I have spoken this railway system is a lifeline. British Railways did not build the 100,000 additional houses built in that region since the war, but they have to face the colossal transport problem involved in this great social movement, and I would be sorry if we were not ready to give the Commission the powers it seeks.
This should not be a political exercise, and I hope that we shall end this debate by giving British Railways the permission necessary to do this most urgent job.

8.36 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: I agree with the hon. Member for Ash-for (Mr. Deedes) in hoping that nothing will be done to delay the passage of the Bill, but I should like to add to what has already been said about taxis at railway stations, since the position in my constituency is rather peculiar.
I also agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) when he said that we should

have in mind, principally, the travelling public. On the other hand, no one has proved that the present set-up gives the travelling public the best possible service, nor that there is not a better system.
Like others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have been interested in this subject for some considerable time. I went some time ago with the deputation that saw the chairman of the British Transport Commission, and since then several Questions have been put to the Minister of Transport. I shall not say anything about the Report of the Consultative Committee—it has already been dealt with—except to point out that all the parties concerned were not consulted, and my own taxi people feel bitterly because their evidence was not called for.
Both in this House and elsewhere we have had evidence that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, but about one thing let us be very clear. For the taxi men, it is a case of the "haves "versus the "have-nots", because to those who have the privilege to ply for hire at them the stations mean a steady income.
As long as a few taxi-drivers are allowed to ply for hire at the stations whilst others are not allowed to do so there will be this dissatisfaction. All taxi-drivers, of course, want to share in the business at the stations. I share the fears of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper when he said that if there were a free-for-all it might not work; but it works in some places. It works in London and in Manchester, and I cannot see why something that works in Ma. Chester should not work in Leeds

Mr. D. Jones: My hon. Friend must remember that there is a tremendous cross-termini traffic in Manchester and London which does not exist in most other cities.

Miss Bacon: It exists to a great extent in Leeds, about which I was speaking. In any case, I do not suggest that we should have a free-for-all, because the taxi people have expressed themselves willing to organise a rota system and an all-night service. We should take this opportunity to see whether a system of that kind cannot be established.
Mention has been made of the peculiar position which exists in Leeds, where there are two well-organised associations of taxi-drivers the members of one of


which are admitted to the stations and the members of the other are not. Far be it from me to take sides in this matter as between one association of taximen in my constituency and another, but the Minister is quite well aware of the difficulty. The money is paid in bulk direct from the association to the British Transport Commission. I believe that it costs £600 to ply for hire at the City Station and £300 at the Central Station.
The important point is that the association which is the privileged body, and not individual taxi-drivers, can determine the amount of the membership fee which will be paid by its members. The Minister knows that the membership fees are in excess of the fees paid for the privilege of plying for hire at stations. I hear that the entry fee to the association costs £10 per cab, with £30 per cab per year membership fee. That is very much in excess of the 3s. a week paid in most other parts of the country where the arrangement is made between the British Transport Commission and the individual taxi owner.
It has been suggested that there are two associations which are at daggers drawn, but there is far more to it than that. The association which is given the privilege of plying for hire at the stations can determine who shall be members, and it can keep the membership as small as possible. In this case, it is not the Commission which determines how many taxis should ply for hire to serve the public but one association of taxi drivers within the city. That is a very different matter.
The whole situation leads to ludicrous results. For instance, a taxi-driver can take a person into a station. He can drop the fare, but he cannot take somebody out of the same station. There was a case not long ago in Leeds, and I know that there have been other cases in Newcastle, where a taxi-driver was brought before the court on a charge of trespassing. On that occasion he was given a conditional discharge. Mention has also been made this evening of places where taxis cannot enter to serve queues of waiting people.
I believe that the Report of the Consultative Committee is far from clear. It says:
At Leeds, complaint has been made by one association of taxi-owners against another association… The Yorkshire Consultative

Committee made particularly careful investigation of Leeds because there appeared to be at first sight some sort of personal monopoly of the licences by the chairman of one association,
That is because there has been an allegation that at one of the stations the privilege was not in the name of the association, but in the name of one person in that association, and he could determine who would ply for hire.
This Report goes on:
On investigation, the Committee were satisfied that there was no evidence of any abuse of this kind.
But the Committee stopped there, and does not go on to say what the position is. A little further on, on page 7, it says:
' The railway management is satisfied that the present system works well, and that it could not be improved.
That is not the view, the Report goes on to say, of the town clerk, but the Yorkshire Committee, after a most thorough investigation, did not see any reason for changing the present system. Therefore, we have the position in which the town clerk, who represents, not the taxi-drivers or a particular association of taxi-drivers, but the City Council, which represents the interests of the people of Leeds, is in favour of a change but the Yorkshire Consultative Committee says that no change is necessary.
I believe that the taxi-owners and drivers are in the mood to try to work some other system, and I hope, therefore, that after there has been this opportunity of debating the matter this evening, we shall have some action by the Minister, through the chairman of the British Transport Commission, to see whether we can have some better system at the stations.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I am sorry to keep on this taxi-driver case, but I should like to make three short points.
I think that there are none of us who support the taxi-drivers who would not agree with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that order is heaven's first law, and that we do want that order. I think that I would go even further than he. He puts the onus on the taxi-drivers to produce a better system than the privilege system, whereas I think that we would all say that the privileged system has the onus on it to produce evidence that it is not only the best way of producing such order but also the only good way.
One hon. Member has asked what are the obligations on somebody who pays Ihis money to the Railway Executive, and, of course, the answer is that they are really quite unenforceable. In point of fact, what is happening is that the privilege system means that a man is buying the cream off the market. He is really in a position to make his money during the week much more quickly and much more certainly, and also in the position of not having to wait in these very long and dark hours when the travelling public want somebody to be on the stations.

Mr. G. Wilson: If he does that, his licence is not renewed on the next occasion.

Mr. Pitman: It is very hard to catch him up at all. I was present at the meeting upstairs, and I support the right hon. Member for Belper, whose union, I believe, was represented, and put the case quite fairly for order and discipline. It was perfectly clear to everybody there that the present system is made to work only because the non-privileged drivers are propping up the deficiences of the existing system. Such non-privileged drivers needed to make their money, and they were prepared to turn out when the other men, having made their money, were not really pulling their weight in the dark hours of the night. I would say that, clearly, in principle, a system which enables somebody to pay money for the privilege of creaming the market must inherently be wrong, and that the onus of proof is on it to show that it is the right way of doing it, and not the other way round.
Secondly, I would say that one thing that has come out clearly is that these consultative committees are eyewash. They are there to justify that which is administratively convenient for the boards, or whatever it is, that are put up. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] The whole approach of these consultative committees, and the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has mentioned the Yorkshire Consultative Committee, has been to "pooh-pooh" this right from the very beginning.
I have seen for myself the information which was laid before the consultative committee at Oxford and rejected. The taxi-drivers there went to the long queues and saw people who had been waiting for over an hour. Those people wrote their evidence, it was sent to the consultative

committee, who turned it down out of hand, saying that it was solicited. How can a consultative committee get information about how the public really feels except from market research? The committee is failing in its duty if the members sit on their chairs and merely expect the public to write in to them if they have anything to say. That is not the way the public behave, and a consultative committee should know this.
We hope that the Minister will do something to provide a well-ordered system which is not based upon privilege.

Mr. Popplewell: As the hon. Gentleman has made a point about the consultative committee, will he, in fairness, make the point clear that no complaints have been received except from Members of Parliament? Secondly, it was the British Transport Commission which pressed the Central Transport Consultative Committee to do something, and that committee set up a special working party to investigate the position. Hence the inquiry, so that other people could say what complaints had been received. No complaints have been received.

Mr. Pitman: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a very good example of that whited sepulchre. It is a good example of refusing to accept information. It is just not true that the consultative committee had not got the complaints. It said that this was not unsolicited information and would not even look at it.

8.52 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Along with everyone else who has spoken, I have no desire to hold up the passage of the Bill, but I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not state the Liverpool case, because I have three railway stations in my constituency. I am in rather a privileged position, because I am representing the Transport and General Workers' Union in this matter. I am also representing the Taxi Owners' Association and also the licensing authority, because I am deputy-chairman of the Liverpool licensing authority.
We have been trying to get this matter straightened out since 1949. We have had deputations to the British Transport Commission. We have had representations from the Town Clerk's Department of the local authority. In Liverpool, we


have 300 taxi-cabs licensed. The maximum number of taxi-cabs which can ply for hire in the three railway stations is 87. We have just over 500 licensed taxi-drivers, so that we can be certain there will be sufficient taxis on the streets for 24 hours if necessary. Some licensed taxi-drivers pay 3s. a week for the privilege of going into the railway stations. The rest of the taxi drivers are very disturbed about this, because they have no way of deciding through their association who shall fill any vacancy which may be created. That is done by the railway authorities.
The licensing authority has said that it would be prepared, through the hackney carriage department and the hackney carriage inspector, to take responsibility for seeing that the stations were always fully taxied whenever trains arrived. There is exactly the same position as Leeds. We have taxis picking up passengers outside the city, bringing them into the stations, putting them down and then, although there may not be another taxi in the station, not being permitted to pick up passengers at the station.
That is an instruction of British Railways in Liverpool. We have been contending that when one of these taxis arrives at the station and sets down a passenger, when the driver puts up his flag he should be able to ply for hire We have been told that that is wrong and that it is not permitted, on private railway property, to pick up a passenger from a train, unless the taxi driver is paying his 3s. a week and is one of the 87 taxi drivers able to wait at the station.

Mr. H. Hynd: That point is dealt with on page 10 of the Consultative Committee's Report, which the British Transport Commission has accepted. The Commission has explained the position.

Mrs. Braddock: I have read the Report. I was one of those who discussed the matter with Sir Brian Robertson. I gave him this information and I pointed out what the position was. It is all right having these things on paper, but when they do not work in that way, someone ought to take the responsibility for issuing an instruction.
The Liverpool Watch and Licensing Committees have said that if the three railway stations will accept taxi ranks in the stations, our inspector of hackney

carriages from the licensed ranks outside the station will see that there are always sufficient taxis available on the ranks in the station to meet the needs of the travelling public.
Liverpool is a busy centre and there are constantly incoming trains for connections with ships. Many people arrive by train to depart for places all over the world and there are visitors from abroad and passengers from London Airport. There have been many occasions when I have arrived by train, from London particularly, when there has not been a taxi-cab in sight and when the porters have grabbed people's luggage and run into Lime Street to the taxi rank there with the travellers following behind.
That may result in an additional tip for the railway porter, but that is not a procedure to be recommended. There should be taxi ranks immediately inside the station. There are plenty of taxi ranks in the centre of Liverpool. We have just rearranged them right round the city because of the change of traffic control. Every one of the men has said that he is prepared, along with the hackney carriage inspector, who is an official of the Watch Committee, to take responsibility for seeing that at all times there are sufficient taxis on the stations when necessary. That will be done by arranging that when a taxi driver sets down a passenger in the station he will go to the back of the queue and be called into the station by the inspector, thus keeping the permitted number of taxis on the station taxi rank.
There has been deputation after deputation since 1949, especially to the District Passenger Manager at Lime Street Station. The last occasion was in 1955. In Mr. Speaker's words, for the sake of greater accuracy I will read the note about that meeting which came from the town clerk's office in December, 1955.
At the request of … District Passenger Manager of British Railways, a meeting was held in his office on the 5th December, 1955, to consider arrangements for an improved taxi service at Lime Street Station. The meeting was attended by several officials of British Railways representatives of the Taxi Owners' Association, Chief Inspector … of the Hackney Carriages Department, and … the Assistant Town Clerk. After considerable discussion—
the District Passenger Manager—
indicated that certain arrangements would be introduced, on an experimental basis, as from the 1st January, 1956, but the Town Clerk understands that the Taxi Owners' Association


were subsequently notified that the proposed arrangements could not be introduced following instructions from the London office of the British Railways Executive.
If the Minister will take the responsibility of saying that the stations should be open I can give a guarantee that there will never be any shortage of licensed taxis on the three railway stations in Liverpool.
As long as this business goes on the men are upset. Some of the men can earn large sums because they are privileged; others, because they cannot go on to the stations, just have to manage. We have restricted the number of taxi-drivers to just over 500 when we have 300 cabs licensed so that there will be a better opportunity for the men to earn a decent living. That has been done in agreement with the Transport and General Workers' Union and with the Liverpool Taxi Owners' Association. I hope that some steps will be taken, if only for a trial period, to see how this system works and to get reports on how it works. The present system has been tried for years. Let us now try the other way. If it does not work properly, we should be perfectly justified in suggesting that an alteration should be made.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I do not want to follow the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) in detail. She has made a very powerful speech, and I can only conclude that those who are responsible would be very ill-advised not to take careful note of what she has said.
There are three short points which I want to make. First, I profoundly regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should have selected Sir Brian Robertson for such a personal attack. I do not believe that I am misconstruing him in any way when I say that he suggested that Sir Brian was claiming for himself such a degree of constitutional authority as to usurp the job and powers of Mr. Speaker himself. I think that such a charge levelled against such a person is one of the most surprising, unreasonable and unfair charges that I have ever heard in this House. I do not believe—I do not want to be unfair to him—that it is his desire to be unfair at all, but I think that he has been exceedingly so in this instance.
The two other points that remain for me I want to make as clearly as I can. What are we here to do in the House of Commons? We are not here to do the job of the Commission. I think that if we are to tell the Commission what is fair and what is unfair, what serves the travelling public and what does disservice to the travelling public, we shall be getting very far away from our proper task.
When Parliament criticises a nationalised industry of this kind—I recognise that this is not a party matter—it should be careful to see that the criticism is constructive and is not of a kind which goes too much into detailed management. I do not think that we can say that the Commission has not fully considered the case which has been made against it. That is one charge which we should probably be entitled to make if it were justified.
This House cannot and should not tell the Commission how it should carry out this task. It should recognise that the Commission does not have to provide and administer a taxi service. It is up to the Commission to make arrangements which it considers most convenient to provide for the needs of the travelling public. Throughout this discussion there has been a tendency to ignore again and again the needs of the public. Far too often we have tended to ignore the needs of the users of the transport system. We do a very ill service to the Commission and to the transport industry in general if we insist upon trespassing on ground which manifestly is not the province of the House of Commons.
I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley should have levelled these charges at Sir Brian Robertson, thereby adding to his difficulties and in no way contributing to their solution.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: Unlike the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I have no complaint about this grievance having been raised in the House today. This is the place for grievances to be raised, whether on behalf of taxi-drivers or the public, and in such a Bill as this it is legitimate for any hon. Member to raise such a grievance. But I hope that my hon. Friends will not take their objections too far—certainly not into the Division Lobbies, because the Bill is designed primarily to set in motion many


of the important works for which some of us have been pressing for some time. It will deal not only with the electrification about which an hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke, but with works at Colchester, Holyhead and other places in Yorkshire—[Laughter.] I mean in other places as well as in Yorkshire. It would be a great pity if anything said this evening held up a Bill which all hon. Members want to see put through and enforced as soon as possible.
Some of the complaints which have been raised seem to call for more investigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) spoke as though a small group of taxi-cab drivers or owners were operating a racket at the railway stations in Leeds. These complaints have been gone into fairly thoroughly by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, and I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) who drew the conclusion that consultative committees are nothing but eyewash. The Report of that Committee has not been given the credit that it deserves.
One complaint raised today, for example, was to the effect that if there are no cabs in the station there is no service for the public. The Report points out that it is the duty of the station staff to call taxi-cabs from outside if necessary, and since that Report has been adopted by the Commission, thereby becoming the Commission's recommendation, that is the system which should be operated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East also said that if a taxi-cab goes into a station and drops a passenger there, it is not allowed to pick up another passenger if it is not licensed to use that station. That point again is specifically dealt with in the Report. The Report goes on to say that there is nothing to prevent that driver from picking up another passenger. As I said before, the Report has been adopted by the Commission. Therefore, that complaint need no longer be raised. The suggestion of the Report, following on what was suggested by the Transport and Genera] Workers' Union that if these drivers would join an appropriate organisation they could reach agreement with the Commission, is a very fair and just one and ought to clear up the whole matter if it is used properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said several times that there was no machinery for such grievances to be brought forward. In order to justify that remark he ought to have shown that the British Transport Commission had refused to meet any of the people concerned. I did not hear him say that it had refused to meet them. In my opinion, there is an open door for any legitimate interest to make a complaint to the Commission, particularly if they are in an organised body and go through the proper channels.
Most of the other points that I intended to make have been made very eloquently by other hon. Members. Therefore, I finish, as I began, by saying that while it has been a good thing that these complaints have been ventilated this evening, I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed passage in order that we can provide the modernisation and employment which we all want to see.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Like several hon. Members, I think it is very important that the Bill should proceed into law successfully. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out, a large section of the Bill deals with the modernisation programme of British Railways. Few of us can have any doubt today that the progress of that modernisation is of tremendous importance.
I expect that hon. Members on both sides of the House have seen some forecast of probable developments of the railway system in the United States. It is anticipated that in the next fifteen years or so a major portion of the American railway system will disappear altogether. They have decided, rightly or wrongly, that with the conditions of their country there will be no need in the foreseeable future for the sort of railway system which they have today. In other words, they are going on the road and into the air. We in these islands have decided that that cannot be our immediate future. We have decided rightly or wrongly— and I think rightly—that we will never have available the sort of land which we can use for airfields and roads on the scale they can in such a vast country as the United States. With such drastic things happening in another part of the world, the need for the acceleration of


this modernisation programme becomes apparent.
I should like to comment on one or two unfortunate omissions from the Bill. We are giving power to the British Transport Commission to do important works in many parts of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will note my disappointment that there are no proposals in the Bill relating to the South Wales Docks, which are the property of the British Transport Commission. I had hoped that the British Transport Commission would come forward at this time with some ambitious projects for expanding the Docks, particularly at Barry and Cardiff, and transforming them into general cargo docks. We have a tremendous problem before us in that part of the United Kingdom if we are to make those ports into general cargo ports. If the British Transport Commission continues to assert, as it has in the past, that provided we find the traffic it will provide the installations, I reiterate what I have already said in a memorandum which I submitted to the Minister of Transport, that they are putting the cart before the horse. Give us some of these installations and we will then be able to go out for the cargoes.
Also I can assure my hon. Friend that we are all pleased that modernisation is progressing so visibly in some parts of the country, including the south-east, but there is a feeling in many parts of South Wales in the industrial part that they are not getting their fair share of modernisation. There is also a fairly widespread feeling that, as that part of the country includes South West Wales which has particular difficulties, there is a case for concentrating some of the modernisation in the south western part of Wales.
After making those relatively short points, I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give serious consideration, in conjunction with the British Transport Commission, to the difficulties of South Wales and of South Wales ports and the need for expansion and modernisation there, as elsewhere. The need for modernisation, wherever it takes place in the United Kingdom, is paramount, and I hope that the Bill will pass speedily into law.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: No one could possibly deny the importance of the issue raised in the Amend-

ment which was so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway): I must confess there is a danger if we keep talking about this Amendment that we shall fail to see the Bill in true perspective. I would urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I feel sometimes that we do not fully appreciate the immense task undertaken by the British Transport Commission. In a letter to the Sunday Timeslast weekend Sir Philip Warter pinpointed some of the difficulties when he indicated "that a great part of the fixed equipment of British Railways is at least 100 years old and is totally inadequate to deal with modern requirements. This position is the direct result of a long period of neglect and financial starvation, and that is why a large-scale programme of modernisation is now necessary. A great deal of the money has to be spent on civil engineering such as on signals and telecommunication work, apart from the more readily visible re-equipment with electric and diesel locomotives and modern coaching stock."
There is an understandable public clamour for punctuality and greater efficiency. Both are highly desirable, but they will not be achieved until many of these reconstruction schemes are brought to completion. The Government are not free from blame for the delay which has taken place. I can recall the disappointment of Lord Hurcomb and those of us who sat with him on the Joint Council when Government policy brought the capital investment programme to a standstill. Sir Brian Robertson has inherited this situation, and he must experience a sense of frustration when we show reluctance to help him to expedite the programme.
The employees of British Railways have a number of legitimate grievances, but they are not using them as a lever to hinder modernisation. British Railways superannuitants have special grounds for resentment owing to grossly inadequate pensions and the refusal of the B.T.C. to come to their aid. The cost would be infinitesimal compared with the expenditure envisaged in the Bill, but these people do not ask us to be obstructive about the Bill.
With regard to the Amendment relating to taxi-cabs at stations, it is not only unfair but manifestly wrong to dismiss as "eyewash" the Report submitted to the Minister by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which was a summary of two other reports. We should remember that these are three absolutely independent bodies open to receive criticism from the public at all times, that they have met in various parts of the country, have advertised their meetings and have indicated their willingness to consider any serious complaint. Hon. Members who have not had the opportunity should seek a copy of this Report and consider it on its merits.
I listened with the greatest interest to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool. Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). Her speech was a complete contradiction of a paragraph in the Report relating to Lime Street Station, Liverpool. The Report states:
Lime Street Station, however, has only one approach road, with a very narrow skewed entrance through which both incoming and outgoing streams of traffic have to pass, and the North-Western Area Committee, among whose members is the Chairman of the transport committee of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, reached the unanimous and emphatic conclusion that the Town Clerk's proposal would be a disastrous one for passengers.

Mrs. Braddock: The point my hon. Friend has forgotten is that there are taxis which can go into the station. The suggestion being made by the Hackney Carriage Committee is not that there should be a lot more but that there should be a taxi-rank inside the station fed from a taxi-rank outside, irrespective of anyone paying 3s. a week for that privilege. There are taxis which go in at the moment.

Mr. Morris: I can follow that, but the point I am making is that the evidence admitted to the Minister by this Committee makes it quite clear that it is impossible to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend as expressed in the terms of the Amendment. On page 8 of the Report it is said:
We asked the National Taxi-Car Association for details of any complaint made to them by members of the public of instances where the provision of licensed cabs had proved inadequate to supply a demand for taxis in stations but where unauthorised cabs had been

prevented from satisfying such demand, and whether they had approached any of the Railway Regions concerned regarding these matters.
The Commission received no reply and no specific answer to either of the questions.
It seems to me that all the complaints which have been mentioned this evening can be dealt with by the B.T.C. The door is open and general managers in various regions have been instructed to re-examine the position. I feel convinced that hon. Members who are so worried about the taxi-drivers should not vote against this Bill merely on those grounds. If they do, they must realise that they are voting contrary to the interests of public policy and dealing with a very great matter in a manner which can only be described as irresponsible. If their purpose tonight is to ventilate the difficulties of taxi-drivers, if I may say so without being thought presumptuous, they have done so extremely well. I hope they will be content with that and will leave the B.T.C. to examine the proposals made and give this very important Bill a Second Reading without a Division.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) that we do not want to delay the Bill. The sooner we stop the sort of inhumanity practised on the traveller to which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) referred, the better.
Having said that, I must say that I find myself wholly on the side of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I think that he was quite right to raise this question of the allocation of taxi-cabs to stations. I hope that it will be solved along the lines suggested. I fully share his view that this is an occasion—one which does not arise too often—offered to us when we can ventilate the views of constituents about matters concerning a nationalised industry. I do not do this in any hostile spirit to the industry, but it is useful to those in the industry to know what is being thought and to have suggestions put before them. I am sure that they will not mind that being done.
I want to put one or two points which concern my constituents, not individually, but as travellers. The first is that the main gateway to Orkney and Shetland is


by air from Aberdeen. In winter, the bus for the only aeroplane to Orkney and Shetland each day leaves at 8.15 in the morning. The train from the South varies at weekends, but it gets in about 7.30 a.m. Unfortunately, that train is often late and, therefore, travellers miss the plane, whereupon they are compelled to spend at least one night in Aberdeen, and, if they are unlucky not to get on the plane the next day, they may have to spend two nights. One constituent of mine actually spent three nights.
To spend three days in Aberdeen by force majeureis extremely trying. This matter affects not only the British Transport Commission, but B.E.A. Unfortunately, I find that there is such cut-throat competition between these nationalised industries, that to get them to alter their schedules to fit in one with the other is like an irresistible force against a resistible block. Somehow, we have to extend the time at Aberdeen unless the trains can be made a great deal more punctual. I have taken this matter up with Sir Brian Robertson and I have had a most courteous reply from him. He has been most helpful and has arranged for information to be sent forward when trains are late. But I hope that when, next winter, schedules are reconsidered, this difficulty may be looked at.
Secondly, and, I believe, rightly, the Transport Commission now insists that unless one gives up a sleeper 24 hours before it is required one has to pay for it. I have no objection to that in general. But many people who come from the North find that the plane does not fly and are, therefore, put to extra expense through no fault of their own. It is a small point, but it happens continually and if the point of view of the users is looked at I shall be grateful.
The last point upon which I wish to touch directly arises out of the plan for redeveloping and reconstructing the railways. I think that it is the experience of many hon. Members, probably chiefly as a result of the reconstruction programme, that trains are late. The last three trains which I have travelled down from Scotland on have been substantially late. One, in fact, was two and a half hours late. Very often as soon as one gets on a train one is told by the guard or conductor that the train will be late.

I agree that this is due largely to the reconstruction programme which we all want to see go forward, but it causes immense difficulty to people who have appointments and connections to catch, and so forth.
On certain occasions, particularly at weekends, there is a regular re-routing of trains, because repairs are being carried out on northern lines and it is known before the train starts that it will be an hour or two late. This is put up on boards at stations, but as far as I know it is not published in any other way. I appreciate the difficulties, but would it not be possible, so long as this goes on, to publicise the lateness of trains? Would it not be possible for the B.B.C. to make an announcement that the Scottish train will be late, possibly an hour late, because it is re-routed so frequently on Sunday nights?

Mr. Popplewell: In certain areas the B.T.C. issue to the local Press bulletins for that purpose.

Mr. Grimond: That is a good practice. The hon. Member for Ashford referred to the bulletin of the Southern Region, which is an extremely good step in the same direction.
There also seems to me to be a tendency to feel that while reconstruction is going on nothing can be done to old stations until they are pulled down. They are in a terrible state and are very difficult to keep clean. The travelling public may be chiefly to blame here, because they make a fearful mess of many of them by scrawling all over them. The Transport Commission might, through publicity, say that it will get on with reconstruction and new stations will come, but in the meantime it should do its best to keep up the appearances of the old stations and to wash and clean them if the public will co-operate.
The scrawls on the walls of a station which I regularly use are such that one is reluctant to let children go into the waiting room. The staff clean them off to some extent, but they are put back. This causes bad public relations. Is it not possible to make general use of publicity and public relations to point out to the public the difficulties under which the railways are still working owing to the importance of getting on with reconstruction and the need, in the


meantime, to keep the old equipment and carriages in as good a condition as possible.

9.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): This is the annual Bill for the Transport Commission to bring before Parliament the various measures that require Parliamentary authority for the works to be done in the coming year. This year we have broken new ground in discussing almost throughout the evening what is not in the Bill rather than what is in the Bill. I cannot see any objection to that, Mr. Speaker; no doubt, if we had been out of order you would have told us. Certainly, the constitutional device of grievances before Supply is one which has been echoed here throughout the centuries.
We have had a lively debate on that account. If we finish by getting the Bill at the end of it and the Commission's affairs being unimpeded, we cannot complain. We might, in fact, say that we have had some interest and liveliness as a result of the intervention by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). However, I thank particularly the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), both of whom reminded us of the great importance to the Commission of the schedule of works in the Bill. It is vital to the Commission's programme in the coming year for its Modernisation Plan. Whatever criticism we may have of the Commission and its affairs, we all want that Plan to succeed.
I will, of course, take note of the other points of grievance that were ventilated by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). His point concerning punctuality is one that I have already taken up with the Commission on previous occasions to ask whether it is not possible to re-schedule trains when it is known that there will be interference with the time-table. I am told that although the Commission does the best that it can, there are times when the unexpected happens. I will certainly bring to the attention of the Commission the points raised by the hon. Member.
To turn to the main subject which we have been debating tonight, it was my job and privilege to receive the delegation of Members of Parliament and representatives of the large gathering of taxi-drivers who assembled upstairs about ten days ago. I recognise that there was weight in the complaint of hon. Members, and I recognise that the taxi-drivers who were present made a strong case for themselves. I could not judge the merits of the case; I was not in a position to do so and, constitutionally, I am not able to do so. After hearing hon. Members, however, I undertook to see the chairman of the Transport Commission to ascertain what could be done to meet these grievances. My right hon. Friend agreed to this course.
Consequently, I saw the chairman of the Transport Commission. I explained to him the grievances that I had heard and the weight given to them by hon. Members. The chairman of the Commission asked me to leave no doubt in the minds of hon. Members that he reaffirmed his acceptance of the Report by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, including the point, made tonight by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), concerning the making of agreements with taxi associations.
The chairman of the Commission told me that last September he had instructed his regional general managers to implement those arrangements where possible and as existing agreements lapsed. No one would expect him to abrogate existing agreements. After I had spoken to him he agreed, in order to expedite the matter, to call for reports now from his regional general managers to find out what progress they were making. It will inevitably take time for these things to be implemented.
The chairman has had an exchange of letters with me, and he would like me to make it absolutely plain, first of all, that he is always ready to see right hon. and hon. Members on any complaint which they may have on this or any other matter and will do his best to sort matters out and put them right. If I read a short passage from his letter on this subject, it will, I think, give an indication about the other part of the matter which hon. Members may wish to hear:
I would invariably pay first regard to the views set out in the Report of the Transport


Users' Consultative Committee. Subject to that proviso. I should be prepared to see whether anything could be done at a particular station to meet complaints from the taxi operators",
and then he says that, over a number of years, the Commission has managed to do a certain amount. The Chairman will do his best, and he assured me that, despite all the difficulties which hedge this thing around, he would be ready at any time to see hon. Members to discuss individual cases. I believe that that is the best that can be done.
As regards the general merits of the case, I feel, first of all, that I should make plain—I think this is generally accepted, except, perhaps, by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that arrangements between British Railways and taxi-cab owners are primarily a matter of day-to-day management. They really are not policy matters for the Minister. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley for accepting that. It was, of course, because of the entirely practical situation about which a number of hon. Members on both sides were worried that my right hon. Friend 18 months ago asked the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee to investigate the complaint. The Committee made the Report which was published last July, of which we have all seen copies.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) I will say that it was a good Report. The Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which was responsible for it. asked each of the regional committees to go into action and collect the facts upon which the Report could be made. It really was a comprehensive Report. I want to leave no doubt at all in the mind of any hon. Member that my right hon. Friend and I have every confidence in these committees. They have a most difficult job to do. They have in their membership men and women who voluntarily give their services for the good of the community in a most unenviable task, which takes a (rood deal of time, and they do it extremely well. I hope that it will be some consolation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath when I tell him that the general manager of the Western Region, I think it is, who was responsible for the arrangements in Oxford, did, as a result of those representations about which my hon. Friend complained, authorise additional taxis to

go on the rank there afterwards because he thought that there was weight in the complaint
To the hon. Member for Dudley I say that we really feel that we can rely on the Report in regard to travellers' complaints. After all, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) rightly said, travellers' complaints could come in at any time during the past 10 or 12 years since these committees have been set up. If there were a serious body of complaint about travellers' needs, I am quite certain that the consultative committees would have heard about it.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley—the Report itself acknowledges it, and that is the reason why the hon. Member raised his grievance tonight—that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee was not looking at the grievance of taxi-drivers. As regards travellers' needs. I hope I have made the point that I believe that the Report was quite reliable. Inevitably, by its constitution, the Committee would be looking only secondarily at the complaints of taxi owners and drivers. For the Commission, of course, that is right.
I welcome the support given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), on his own behalf and that of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and that of other hon. Members, to the proposition that the Commission's primary job is to cater for the convenience of travellers. I believe that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides accept that that must be so. It is the Commission's statutory duty. If, at any time, it made arrangements with taxi-drivers or taxi-drivers' associations that neglected the interests of travellers, I am quite certain that, whatever complaints I might hear tonight, I should hear very many more from other Members on that account. We all agree that the Commission must look, first, to the interests of the travelling public; and that it has been doing.
I was very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) for giving us his interesting account of how the system grew up, and for arguing the general merits of the case. There is no doubt that it has served reasonably well. Having made the priorities clear— and I believe that they are generally acceptable—I would certainly wish to see


the fairest possible arrangements made as between taxi-drivers, and I am quite certain that the chairman of the Commission, Sir Brian Robertson, would wish to see the same. His letter broadly indicates that—

Mr. Charles A. Howell: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Commission is prepared to accept the Report. Would he make it clear whether that refers to the whole Report, or to just this point? I ask, because if one looks at page 10, one sees an indication that the staff of small stations will be encouraged to give the telephone numbers of private taxi-drivers when no other vehicle is there. If that is so, an instruction will have to be issued, because when I was chairman of a local departmental committee I was asked to use my good offices to stop the men doing that, and to threaten disciplinary action if they did so, because these men were paying to come in.

Mr. Nugent: The Commission has made a reservation about that. What the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee recommended was that in small stations there should be pinned in the waiting hall the cards of the various taxi-drivers, so that travellers could see who was available. The Commission foresees difficulties there because, even at small stations, there is usually some arrangement for a taxi-driver to serve the station.
The Commission is, therefore, reluctant to agree to this as a general arrangement. It may be suitable in some places, but the Commission feels that it should not agree to it as a general principle, as it would make difficulties for itself. It prefers to go by the arrangement of telling the booking clerks to pass on the necessary information to travellers. The Commission agrees with the spirit, but does not want to be tied to the form.
That brings me to the point I want to make. Hon. Members have readily recognised that there are over 700 stations where agreements of this kind are in force and, inevitably, the conditions vary. At one end of the scale, we have arrangements such as those at London or Manchester, which have been referred to, where, because of the huge volume of traffic and the interchange between the different stations, it is possible to have

a free-for-all and, in the main, the travellers are well served.
At the other end of the scale, we have the small stations where traffic is irregular, where it is far more difficult to make sure that there is always a taxi in attendance, and where some much more ad hoc arrangements have to be made. Again, in some towns it has been possible to form organisations of taxi-drivers or taxi-owners strong enough to make an agreement, and to establish the necessary degree of discipline to work a regular, reliable service for the station. I do not think that I used the word "comprehensive" which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough suggested. It may be that he has heard it in some other connection. It was not one which was running in my mind.
It is entirely a practical matter that the organisation should be strong enough so that, in the words of the right hon. Member for Belper, it can impose discipline and get its members to work a rota in a reliable way. Where that can be done, the Commission is quite ready to make an agreement with the organisation. I can certainly put it on record for the Chairman of the Commission that he is very happy to co-operate wherever that can be brought about. When I listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) making her cogent case, I could think of absolutely no answer to it, but I am sure that Sir Brian Robertson will be able to do so when he comes to talk with the hon. Lady. Anyhow, I feel that it is not for me to enter into the details of this case.
Conditions vary tremendously, in physical lay-out, the size of towns and local organisations, from one station to another, and it would be possible to secure solutions only if the general principles as laid down by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee in a general spirit are applied as far as they can be to individual stations. This will take time to do, but I hope that hon. Members, looking at this in a responsible, objective way, which I am sure they will, will see the balance, when they apply their minds to particular questions, in the necessity, first of all, to serve the travellers' interest and be quite certain that it is properly served and then see what, with what scope is left, we can best do to meet the interests of taxi-drivers.
But however hard the Chairman of the Commission tries, he will never satisfy all the taxi-drivers all the time. It simply cannot be done. As the right hon. Member for Belper said, by the very nature of things many taxi-drivers are extremely independent. They want to go on their own. They will not come in, and yet they complain if they do not receive the benefits which others receive.
I hope that hon. Members will accept the broad assurance that I have been able to give tonight that the Chairman of the Transport Commission accepts fully the principles involved here, that he is anxious to see them applied—but it will take time—that he is willing to see individual Members and discuss with them individual problems and see what best can be done to obtain arrangements which are fair between one taxi-driver and another. If hon. Members accept that in that spirit, I think that we shall gradually correct the injustices, if they exist in some places, and get a system in which everybody can feel complete confidence.
I should like to close by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I feel it in my bones that, whatever may have been said, we want the Transport Commission to know that it goes out from here tonight that we want it to have every help that we can give it. We want it to have the benefit that these works can give it, which the powers for which it asks can give, and we want it to go ahead with our blessing and support in this great modernisation scheme, and we want to assure the chairman, Sir Brian Robertson, that he has the confidence of all of us in doing an extremely difficult job and that we shall wish him every good wish in carrying it out for the benefit of the whole community. With that, I hope that the House may be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Wigg: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his very able, courteous and satisfactory reply and say into the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that if I have been unfair it is not for the first time and I can only express my regret.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

ROYAL NAVY (MR. C. P. BECK)

Motion made, and Question proposed.That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The case I am raising to night affects my constituent, Mr. C. P. Beck, who lives in the Whitchurch area, near Cardiff, and who is today a schoolmaster. At the outset, I should like to make it clear that Mr. Beck has always told me that he regards his complaint as a matter of principle. He is not so much interested in any sum of money which he may or may not receive from the Admiralty. He is much more concerned that the services of chief petty officers like himself and with similar records of service should be appropriately recognised by the Admiralty.
I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy shown by both my noble Friend and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and, indeed, by permanent members of the Civil Service in the Admiralty, during the very prolonged correspondence which has preceded tonight's debate. As my hon. Friend will be aware, more than eighteen months have elapsed since I first brought my constituent's complaint to the notice of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. My hon. Friend will also be aware that about ten years ago there was correspondence about the same subject matter at a time when the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) was the Civil Lord.
May I outline the facts of this case? My constituent, Mr. Beck, joined the Navy about 1928, on a 12-year engagement. Of course, before his 12-year engagement terminated, the 1939 war ensued, and, like so many other people, he was obliged by force of events to serve for five or six years beyond his original engagement. His total service, therefore, extended for more than seventeen years and culminated only on his


demobilisation in November, 1945. I would also like to remind my hon. Friend that, like so many other men who were in the Navy at that time, his period of service included six years' active service in war time.
Mr. Beck attained the rank of chief petty officer, and, all in all, I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that he had what we could describe as a first-class record. Indeed, I have seen his certificate of service, which shows 15 efficiency awards out of about 16 possible annual assessments. His certificate also reflects an unbroken record of good character. Mr. Beck, I understand, also held additional or higher educational certificates which were above the qualifications normally required for a warrant officer. He holds the Long Service Good Conduct Medal, and I might mention, in this connection, that the payment of the bounty which usually accompanied the award of this medal was inexplicably withheld in the case of my constituent through an unexplained technicality.
During his seventeen years' service, he acted as assistant schoolmaster and was on the instruction staff of a naval school of accountancy, where his duties included lecturing to a considerable number of officers. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that my constituent would not desire to exaggerate the quality of his service. Many others did as well as he, and many others attained comparable rank, but I should imagine that my hon. Friend will agree that his was an excellent and credit-worthy record of service.
The time came at a certain stage in the war, I think it was 1943, when there was an urgent need for more commissioned naval officers, and large numbers of chief petty officers were invited to apply for commissions, and many did so. The terms under which these petty officers accepted commissioned rank were embodied in an Admiralty Fleet Order of 1943, and this itself has been the subject of a great deal of correspendence between myself and my right hon. Friend, and indeed my hon. Friend and his predecessor. Also this Admiralty Fleet Order was referred to by my constituent when, in my company, he visited the Admiralty in March, 1958. He was then assured that this Order could and would be produced to him, but as far as I am aware this has not yet been done.
The importance of this arose from my constituent's conviction that the chief petty officers who took up temporary wartime commissions under these arrangements did so knowing that they could expect no special pension or gratuity after the war. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will agree, they assumed the opportunities and responsibilities of commissioned rank with their eyes open. Yet at the conclusion of their service after the war these temporary commissioned officers received what my constituent considers wonderfully preferential treatment. In most cases they had shorter aggregate service in the Navy than chief petty officers like Mr. Beck who did not take commissions.
Perhaps I may illustrate some of the benefits which accrued to those commissioned in this way. For example, if the total service of one of the temporarily commissioned officers exceeded fifteen years—twelve years non-commissioned followed by three years as commissioned officer—he received a pension of at least £2 a week. If his total service was under fifteen years, and, therefore, he did not qualify for pension, he received £100 for each year in commissioned rank and £50 for each year's service as a rating. Thus a temporary officer in the R.N.V.R. with twelve years' service—two years as officer and ten years as a rating— received a gratuity of £800.
We might contrast that with the small payment of £100 which was the only payment received by Mr. Beck when, after seventeen years' total service, he returned to civil life after the war. He therefore returned to civil life six years later than he had anticipated when he took his twelve years' service with the Navy in 1928.
I would point out to my hon. Friend that my constituent, and men like him, therefore entered some other trade or profession—in the case of my constituent, the teaching profession—that much later, and to that extent they are prejudiced by the fact that they will not receive the superannuation which they would have received had they concluded their engagement at the end of twelve years, as they had every reason to expect when they first joined the Navy.
I hope I speak without exaggeration when I say that on these facts it seems to me that the treatment of Mr. Beck, and chief petty officers in his category


would appear to be extremely unfavourable in comparison with the treatment accorded to the other chief petty officers who, for only a very short period in their total service, enjoyed temporary commissioned rank. As Mr. Beck says, in comparison he and others in this category were treated rather meanly by the Admiralty.

I want to point out two other things.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt]

Mr. Gower: I stress the very different explanations for the disparity in treatment put forward by the hon. Member for Stepney about ten years ago, when he was the Civil Lord, and more recently by my right hon. Friend the First Lord. I also pointed out that in recent correspondence which I have received from the Admiralty emphasis has always been laid on a pension. I am asked to stress that at no time did Mr. Beck specify a pension. He has specified only the poor treatment generally given to men in his grade, men with comparable length of service and comparable final rank as chief petty officers. He feels that a gratuity on a slightly more generous scale would have met the case.
That, in brief, is the case I wanted to put to my hon. Friend. It may seem unusual that after all these years and after prolonged correspondence I should raise the matter, but, as I said earlier, my constituent regards this not as a matter of a sum of money, but as a matter of principle. He feels that his service and the service of a limited number of men like him merited a more generous recognition by the Admiralty, a recognition more appropriate to the sort of service which those men rendered in peacetime and war-time, a recognition more commensurate with the sort of treatment accorded to others in similar circumstances, but who, for only a year or two at the end of their service, enjoyed commissioned rank. I thank my hon. Friend for having courteously considered the matter in correspondence, but I hope that he will be able to give more promising information about the case tonight.

10.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on the very reasonable way in which he has spoken this evening on behalf of one of his constituents. Like him, I want to run over the history of this case, although I do not dissociate myself from what my hon. Friend said. Broadly, it was absolutely correct.
Mr. Beck entered the Royal Navy on 6th November, 1928, and signed on for an engagement of twelve years. That engagement expired in November, 1940. and he, like many others, did not reengage to complete time for pension, but, because of the war, was retained from then until the end of the war. In his wisdom, he decided not to apply for a commission of any kind and he continued to serve as a rating until November, 1945.
When his application for immediate release to Class A Reserve was put forward, it was immediately granted. As my hon. Friend said, he had a total service of seventeen years and twenty-one days. He received the war gratuity of about £93 for the services he gave beyond his normal period.
I am the first person to concede that he had in every way an excellent record. His reports were outstanding but, unfortunately, in this uncertain world the rate of pension and the rate of gratuity one gets do not depend on the reports one gets. I am afraid that that is not within my power nor was it within the power of the previous Government. These conditions were laid down and did not depend on whether service was above or below average. I fully concede that Mr. Beck had an admirable career in every way and that he served the Navy and the country well, but that does not allow me to vary the conditions of the gratuity on that account.
The history of this representation has been long and I commend my hon. Friend for his resolution and for the manner in which he has followed the matter through. The present phase started in November, 1957, when my hon. Friend wrote to the First Lord and when the case was thoroughly examined by my Department and the First Lord personally, both then and until March, 1958.
in March, 1958, at Mr. Beck's request, the First Lord agreed, as he was away at the time, that Admiral Norfolk, who was Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel (Personal Services)—a complicated title— should see Mr. Beck in association with my hon. Friend. I think that interview lasted approximately one-and-a-half hours. The case was very thoroughly examined. In reply to further representations all aspects of the case were gone into in considerable detail, both Depart-mentally and also by the First Lord. The matter came before this House on 10th December, 1958, when my predecessor, again after making thorough investigations into the case, had to give what my hon. Friend might describe as an unsatisfactory answer.
I think that the foregoing has all shown that considerable time and trouble have been taken at all levels in this case. That only bears out the credit due to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has pursued it.
I think that we ought to consider the terms of Mr. Beck's engagement, particularly as it concerns gratuity. When Mr. Beck engaged in 1928, the regulations did not provide for payment of gratuity at the end of his engagement nor at any point subsequently, even if he re-engaged to complete time for pension.
I concede what my hon. Friend said that pension was not the predominant or even the major factor in this instance. Had Mr. Beck re-engaged at any time he would have had no entitlement to pension without completing twenty-two years unless, of course, he had been invalided out; then he would have been under these terms entitled to a pension. Throughout that period and throughout his war service from 1940 onwards he had a perfect right to re-engage at any time after completion of ten years of reckon-able service. At any time after 1938, he could have re-engaged and completed his time for pension. Even after leaving the Navy in 1945, he could have applied to re-enter in order to complete his time for pension and probably he would have been accepted, because people were going out all too fast and the Admiralty were looking for this type of man to come back and serve in the Navy. It was open to Mr. Beck to re-engage in 1938 and this was brought to the notice of men in his

position by Admiralty Fleet Order 365/45 of January, 1945. Mr. Beck was released on 26th November, 1945, and shortly after his release a new scheme of gratuities was introduced under the 1945 Pension Code of 19th December which provided for payment—and this point I wish to underline—only in respect of service after introduction of the code.
I think Chat there must have been some misunderstanding on this point in the earlier discussions, because I think that Mr. Beck felt that if he had not gone out in November but had held on until December he would somehow be entitled to a gratuity. That is not so. He would have had to serve for a full year after the start of this scheme, brought in by the former Government, before he would have qualified for a gratuity, in fact at the end of the year he would have qualified for only £25.
I now come to the point referred to by my hon. Friend concerning the payment to ratings granted temporary commissions. In his wisdom Mr. Beck decided not to apply for a temporary commission. He raised two main points of comparison —which were repeated tonight by my hon. Friend—between his case and that of ratings of similar or even shorter service who applied for temporary commissions. The first point is that gratuities payable to ratings granted temporary commissions were very much more generous, but they were paid under a special scheme, because it was felt—very wisely, I think—that people who had graduated from the lower deck to commissioned rank could not, at the end of the war, reasonably be sent back to the lower deck again. They had expected to serve a useful life in the Navy, in many instances of up to twenty-two years, and they had been granted commissions. There was not then a need for more commissioned officers of this character and therefore, to some extent, the Navy had broken a contract with them, and because of that it paid them a gratuity on reasonably generous terms. This gratuity was intended to compensate them for the loss of opportunity to complete a full career as ratings in the Navy, which they had forgone by accepting the extra responsibility of officers.
As I have said, Mr. Beck decided not to apply for a commission. It may be that he would have been granted one.


and so he may be regarded as unfortunate. But everyone in his life makes decisions which, in retrospect, seem to him to be wrong decisions. It may be that at times during his career in this House my hon. Friend has wondered whether it was wise for him to enter Parliament. I know that I have felt like that during the period when we had many all-night sittings, which went on rather too long for some of us. But Mr. Beck made his choice and continued to serve on the lower deck, and he served there very well.
My hon. Friend did not refer to the axeing scheme, but it arises from the considerable correspondence in the matter. I understand that Mr. Beck feels that he has been dealt with rather dustily as compared with those people who were compulsorily or even voluntarily axed under the scheme. Mr. Beck pointed out that C.P.O.s with the same length of service were being discharged under the current axeing scheme with a very large capital sum and a pension. But circumstances whereby men with less than twenty-two years service are receiving capital payments and pensions are special ones. These men signed on for, and reasonably expected, a full pensionable career, not only in the Navy, but in all the Armed Services. Through no fault of their own the Government decided to reduce the size of our forces, and their careers were brought to an abrupt end. The country and the House have said that because of the very special circumstances they were reasonably entitled to rather special treatment.
But in 1945 the position was very different. Far from axeing people forcibly, we were trying to persuade as many of these good men as possible to stay on in the Navy. Therefore, they were not being compulsorily thrown out; they were being asked if they would sign on and continue to serve. It was Mr. Beck's decision to go, and not to serve.
My hon. Friend has said that he wonders whether, in the interests of justice, we ought not to have retrospective legislation. I suggest to the House and to my hon. Friend that not only Beck but people in the other Services may have

felt that they had an unfair rub of luck during the war, but there is clearly no question of retrospective legislation to grant gratuities to men in Beck's position. His was a contract freely entered into and freely terminated, in 1940. It is true that because of the war he, and millions of others—myself included—served on until the end of hostilities, when he chose to go and not to stay. His service had been extended during the years of the war, and he was released at the end of it. At all times during those years he was free to sign on and to complete his time for a pension.
I will now summarise some of the arguments which I have tried to place before my hon. Friend. Mr. Beck does not qualify for a pension—I think that is recognised, and it is not a matter for major debate this evening because he did not complete twenty-two years' service, nor was he invalided out. He does not qualify for a gratuity, other than the war gratuity of just under £100. because he gave no service after 19th December, 1945. when the new scheme was introduced. Nor did he hold, or even ask to hold, a temporary commission.
My hon. Friend said that Mr. Beck was unfortunate because he made a later entry into civil life, in his case into his profession as a schoolmaster. I concede that he did, but that argument applies to between 2 and 3 million men in this country, and women too, who served and, therefore, started later in life than many of their contemporaries.
I am sorry that perhaps the "rub of the green" or the fall of the dice should come in this way, but, in spite of the very persuasive manner in which my hon. Friend has pressed this case over a very long period—through correspondence, through interviews, through Questions in the House and, finally, through an Adjournment debate, for all of which I commend him— I am afraid I have no power to go back and alter the regulations under which Mr. Beck left the Service in 1945.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Ten o'clock.